Why does everyone hate this movie merged with worst change

[SeaStar]

Some of the stuff that's already been discussed (the infamous Suspian Kiss, Peter's attitude, etc.) irritated me when watched Prince Caspian, but I don't hate the movie. I didn't really like it, either. Overall, it was just...OK. It could've been better, though.

Lots of people say this, but actually Aslan doesn't appear that much in the book, so they didn't take him much out of the film compared with the book. Also, personally, I hate the Romp in the book and was glad to see it go!

The Romp would have looked a bit...er...odd. In a book it's one thing. But I can see how putting it in a live-action film would be challenging. I didn't watch the BBC Prince Caspian, so I don't know how they handled it there.

 

[Trufflehunterthebadger]

No, Aslan has a pretty substancle role in the book where in the movie he is seen in like what? three scenes? four?

And HOW THE HECK CAN YOU HATE THE ROMP?!? IT IS SO INCREDIBLY AWSOMEATIC!!!

agrees with peeps, I am also very glad they took out the romp, the only thing i hated in PC. And Aslan hasn't such a big role in the Book, he's just mentioned very much, (the thing that so few belives in him makes that quite clear to me). LWW was Aslans book/Movie and the books after it's up to the habitants of narnia to follow his work! (Atleast to me).

and the Suspian thing is not so terrible. It isn't so strange that a young boy gets in love with a girl and then moves on. I mean, the suspian was a one way thing only, caspian moved on...

And Susan fighting was just cool, instead that she's a bit lame sometimes in the book. And why did Santa gave her the bow if she would never use it?

The raid on Miraz castle wasn't necessary but I quite liked it! I have no problems with that!

the only thing I can agree with is peters arogance, i never understand it. But he's not totally bad he's herioc also (especially after the failure at Miraz castle when he's fighting miraz troops so that everybody can escape).

And I loved the thing with the white witch. When i first read the book I thought that that was gonna happen, (the White Witch would try to make Caspian to go to her side) and was sad that Lewis didn't make it. I'm therefore very glad they included that scen, instead for a scen with, for example the romp wich would have looked ridiculous in a movie.

 

[CaspianGirl]

I LOVED the movie, but it's probably because I saw the movie before I read the book. I don't care though, the movie's better than the book anyways.


*ducks as rocks get thrown at her.*

 

[Copperfox]

The issue of "Peter's arrogance," ALL by itself, is enough to prove that this movie goes AGAINST Mr. Lewis' vision. All that could be said against Peter in the entirety of the book was that he made an error in judgment. But in the movie, they went miles out of their way to portray Peter as a childish idiot from beginning to end. This destroyed, and INTENTIONALLY destroyed, Lewis' message about heroes who have "been there" passing on their wisdom to new heroes who still have to learn. Instead, it reinforced the cheap message of teenybopper movies, that students are wiser than their teachers or parents, that kids should be able to run things with disregard for adults.

 

[Largo]

My sentiments exactly Copperfox.

There were some great things in the movie. I loved how the landscape/set had a Narnia feel to it. I liked the music and the acting was alright. I liked the station/beach transition scene. But the movie wasn’t better than the book…in my very strong opinion at least.


Even though its been said let me put it at the top of my list....I hated the Susan and Caspian romance! I agree that it made the movie childish. What were they doing? trying to sympathize with the hormones of all the teenage viewers? Thankfully it wasn't a BIG deal in the movie but it ruined the ending. If it had been developed on any further it would have brought the Narnia movie down to Twilight's level. That’s all I’m going to say about THAT.

In the book, I loved Reepicheep. They didn’t mess his character up too bad…but I hated to see him tell Pattertwig to SHUTUP like a jerk. He was most unlike a well patient, chivalrous, Narnian knight . Far too condescending…

Peeps is sort of right about Aslan not having much opportunity to be in the movie, as he was not seen very much in the book. Love wasn’t seen very much in this movie, but I can’t think of any suggestions here where they could have done better… As for Lucy not having much respect for Aslan, that’s a bunch of malarkey. On a positive note, I think the Lucy and Aslan correlation was perfect. In fact my favorite parts are of Lucy and Aslan. Lucy was a child in the arms of Christ. What respect was lacking there?

I think I would have liked the movie a whole lot better if Peter and Caspian hadn’t argued so much. And the castle raid was dumb, cool thematically, but dumb. Also, it was sad to see all those narnians killed at the gate because their two kings couldn’t act like adults and make up their minds.

Why did they have to bring in the white witch again? No more Tilda!

I was a little surprised, and a little ashamed when I heard Douglas Gresham (C.S. Lewis’ stepson) saying what a great movie it was and how he thought it turned out good. It made me look at it in a new light. Maybe I was being too harsh on the film, after all, it was only a ‘copy’ of the book and though it was no where near the original work, it was still an alright film. It could have been much worse!

 

[Sopespian]

This thread (follow link, please) might be helpful. As you can see, I've discussed this before, and said pretty much everything I need to say.

 

[Peepiceek]

I agree with CF about Peter. And with Largo about the Reepicheep "Shut up!" line.

In defence of the castle raid:
1) They needed a defeat in battle in order to show the odds they were against. In the book, the defeat came before Peter arrived, and was the cause of Caspian using the horn, but that couldn't happen in the film because the horn had been blown right at the beginning, so there wasn't enough time for meeting the people that lived in hiding, moving to Aslan's How and having a defeat in battle all before Peter arrived.
2) In the book (which I've just been reading) Reepicheep and the Mice do strongly advocate storming Miraz's castle, which is probably where the film-makers got the idea. So it is not completely outlandish. I wish the defeat had come more as a result of a mistake (as in the book) than the Peter/Caspian rivalry, though.

Peeps

 

[inkspot]

iMerge with an older thread on the subject -- the older thread asked "What is the worst change from the book?"

I think all the things fans hated about the movie stemmed from changes made from the book.

For me the #1 worst thing was the decimation of Peter's character/rivalry between Peter and Caspian.

This was truly destructive the the theme of the book and left me feeling that, while PC was a great movie and an enjoyable action picture, it had very little to do with CSL and CON. It was like a Narnia-themed fan-fic movie which had great effects, great acting, great music, etc. I liked the movie as a movie, but as a CON story, it wasn't at all.

 

[Trufflehunterthebadger]

I agree with CF about Peter. And with Largo about the Reepicheep "Shut up!" line.

In defence of the castle raid:
1) They needed a defeat in battle in order to show the odds they were against. In the book, the defeat came before Peter arrived, and was the cause of Caspian using the horn, but that couldn't happen in the film because the horn had been blown right at the beginning, so there wasn't enough time for meeting the people that lived in hiding, moving to Aslan's How and having a defeat in battle all before Peter arrived.
2) In the book (which I've just been reading) Reepicheep and the Mice do strongly advocate storming Miraz's castle, which is probably where the film-makers got the idea. So it is not completely outlandish. I wish the defeat had come more as a result of a mistake (as in the book) than the Peter/Caspian rivalry, though.

Peeps

I had forgot about Reeps idea to storm the castle! Now the scene makes sense to me! Thanks!

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

For me, the movie really failed during the epic duel between Miraz and Peter. This is a a scene that I read doubly fast in the book and hold my breath for in the audiobook (because what if he doesn't manage it this time?!), but in the film I was checking my watch and trying to figure out how much longer we'd be there. So mostly I was just bored.

Peter's characterization irritated me for three reasons--first, because it goes against what we know of him; second, because Peter was supposed to have been a high king for like fifteen years, and this doesn't ring true as someone who has supposedly dealt with other kings before (I mean, did movie!Peter just let his siblings do all the diplomatic work, and only come out of his room to fight...?); and third, because the angry male protagonist who fights all the time is a character I am completely tired of, and would like to please go away. The third one is a personal taste thing, but the first two I think are valid in a more objective way.

Plus, I was horrified by the lack of a Romp, which is my favorite part. I really wanted to see Bacchus and his maenads romping through the countryside with Aslan! And I was disappointed that Lucy's personal journey in the woods, where she is the only one who can see Aslan and must then decide how she is going to act (culminating in the BEST SCENE EVER in which she tells her siblings she is going with or without them, but please do come), was almost entirely cut so Lucy could just hang out on the Table offering people spiritual advice and occasionally healing people. This was not made any better for me when she decides to go seek Aslan out because she saw him in the woods in a dream. Uh, okay.

 

[Peepiceek]

Hi Animus! Good to see you back on the forum.

I think the film would have completely failed if it had followed the book. Remember, the book has four entire chapters of flashback, and they don't even leave Cair Paravel until halfway through the book. So the main protagonists don't actually figure much in the story! That works fine in the book, but I don't think it would work well in film. The film needs to get in on the action quickly.

Similarly, I don't think the Romp would make good film. It would just be a load of strange people milling about partying. So I think that had to be cut (even if you like it in the book, which I don't, although I am coming to appreciate it now more than I used to). And if you cut the romp, you have to cut them following Aslan across the river, because otherwise what is Aslan doing all the while when Peter is fighting Miraz?

The film also had to rehabilitate Susan, because in the book she is utterly pathetic and does nothing but whinge.

Given those constraints, I think the film-makers did really well. I do agree whole-heartedly with the objections about Peter's character. I also don't like the changes they made to Trumpkin's character. But in terms of general story, I think the film got it spot on.

Peeps

 

[inkspot]

Yes, AW, nice to see you here.

For me, the movie really failed during the epic duel between Miraz and Peter. This is a a scene that I read doubly fast in the book and hold my breath for in the audiobook (because what if he doesn't manage it this time?!), but in the film I was checking my watch and trying to figure out how much longer we'd be there. So mostly I was just bored.

I liked the duel in the film; I think that part was really OK.

Peter's characterization irritated me for three reasons--first, because it goes against what we know of him; second, because Peter was supposed to have been a high king for like fifteen years, and this doesn't ring true as someone who has supposedly dealt with other kings before (I mean, did movie!Peter just let his siblings do all the diplomatic work, and only come out of his room to fight...?); and third, because the angry male protagonist who fights all the time is a character I am completely tired of, and would like to please go away. The third one is a personal taste thing, but the first two I think are valid in a more objective way.

Plus, I was horrified by the lack of a Romp, which is my favorite part. I really wanted to see Bacchus and his maenads romping through the countryside with Aslan! And I was disappointed that Lucy's personal journey in the woods, where she is the only one who can see Aslan and must then decide how she is going to act (culminating in the BEST SCENE EVER in which she tells her siblings she is going with or without them, but please do come), was almost entirely cut so Lucy could just hang out on the Table offering people spiritual advice and occasionally healing people. This was not made any better for me when she decides to go seek Aslan out because she saw him in the woods in a dream. Uh, okay.

I agree with all of this.

I think the film would have completely failed if it had followed the book. Remember, the book has four entire chapters of flashback, and they don't even leave Cair Paravel until halfway through the book. So the main protagonists don't actually figure much in the story! That works fine in the book, but I don't think it would work well in film. The film needs to get in on the action quickly.

False -- this could have worked wonderfully in the hands of a brilliant director and scriptwriter. There is no reason the film could not have been as exciting and the book and still true to the book if the director and writer had wanted to do it and been very skillful. I leave it to each person to decide whether Adamson just didn't have the skill or just didn't want to stick with the storyline.

 

[Animus Wyrmis]

::waves:: Hi, everyone! I missed you guys.

I have always seen the Romp as some sort of montage--I think it would have been really fun to watch, and it would have shown that there was another dimension to reclaiming Narnia than just the military one: Aslan literally had to come in and reawaken the land and spread joy and happiness and food and drink as he went. To some extent, I think the battle is about Caspian and the Pevensies reconquering Narnia, but I think the Romp shows us why.

 

[BarbarianKing]

Nobody said we hate the movie. We just think this could have been better named Andrew Adamson's Teen Angst and Ridiculous Love Fantasy Based on The Chronicles of Narnia, Prince Caspian.

 

[MrBob]

Dislikes:
The first scene with Pruni giving birth. Terrible start for this movie.
Peter's and Caspian's attitudes.
The castle raid
Susan as Warrior Queen in the woods

Likes:
Lucy on the bridge--made her look so Valiant
Edmund talking to Miraz
The duel

As for the romp, filmmakers can make it look good, they just chose not to, and for these guys, I don't blame them. I don't know if they could have successfully done it.

MrBob

 

[Peepiceek]

False -- this could have worked wonderfully in the hands of a brilliant director and scriptwriter. There is no reason the film could not have been as exciting and the book and still true to the book if the director and writer had wanted to do it and been very skillful. I leave it to each person to decide whether Adamson just didn't have the skill or just didn't want to stick with the storyline.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 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. They cut quite a bit of stuff including (I think) the Romp.

Peeps

 

[inkspot]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. 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. They cut quite a bit of stuff including (I think) the Romp.

Peeps

Can you believe it? I never have seen the BBC versions. Our absent Waterhogboy told me so much about them I didn't want to see them ... but I'll stand by my assertion... just because BBC's version was dull and stuck to the book does not mean that any version that stuck to the book would be dull. The book is exciting, and the movie could have been exciting sticking to the themes of the book more than it did. Setting Peter and Caspian in opposition to each other was in direct violation of the book's overarching theme -- once they had done that, no amount of added excitement could fix it.

 

[MissReepicheep]

In the poll, there should have been an answer which read 'all of the above'.

 

[Peepiceek]

Can you believe it? I never have seen the BBC versions. Our absent Waterhogboy told me so much about them I didn't want to see them ... but I'll stand by my assertion... just because BBC's version was dull and stuck to the book does not mean that any version that stuck to the book would be dull. The book is exciting, and the movie could have been exciting sticking to the themes of the book more than it did. Setting Peter and Caspian in opposition to each other was in direct violation of the book's overarching theme -- once they had done that, no amount of added excitement could fix it.

You can view them on Youtube if you want. Once you have, you will never criticise the films again!!

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think, as I said before - though I do agree with you that the Peter/Caspian rivalry was an unnecessary and unwelcome change, as was Trumpkin's grumpiness compared with the book's cheerfulness.

Peeps

 

[BarbarianKing]

You can view them on Youtube if you want. Once you have, you will never criticise the films again!!

I have seen the BBC versions. And I still stand behind my criticism of Adamson's fantasy based on PC.