You know its easy to criticize movie Peter when watching the film but...

Status
Not open for further replies.
You're right. It is easy to criticize film Peter.

The reason it's easy is because he is WRONG. He's a bad character. Disney decided they wanted something to grab the 13-19's, so they decided to throw a high school style love story into it. To have a love story, you have to have a subplot involving a protagonist and an antagonist, and a romantic interest.

In some stories, you can do this, and the protagonist for the love story is the same as the protagonist for the movie, the antagonist for the love story is the same as the antagonist for the movie, and it'd work.

In this story, you had dual protagonists for the main plot, and a protagonist/antagonist for the love story. That's a lot harder to pull off, especially in situations where the love interest/romantic interest is NOT the main story. It's very hard to keep that conflict from overriding the main conflict.

And yes, Peter DID love his sister, and his affections for her were familial, and they were at war with Caspian's non-familial affections (the more romantic ones), and there you go. One ready made conflict.

It was almost pathetic at the end where you expected Caspian and Peter to do a fist-bump and Peter to say "You take care of her, bro."

So yes, it is easy to judge Peter harshly. He was written to be a jerk.

That's not how CS Lewis wrote him, and when the long history of this series in movies is written, they'll say that was the biggest mistake, and ultimately the death of the new movie series.

All they had to do was make Peter the same as he had been from the book. I know Lewis writes some flat, unbelievable characters sometimes, but in fleshing the characters out, Disney should have stuck with Peter's core beliefs, not turned the movie into High School Musical: Narnia Edition.

I'm almost surprised they didn't have Miley Cyrus sing a stupid song in this one.
 
Hmm, maybe Peter was a bit impatient in the movie and the reason that I think is because he is waiting to go back in Narnia and serve his people there with his siblings. But then, it took a year before they came back and he was a bit pissed off I guess. He didn't earn much patience as Ed and Lu did in the film...While Susan was trying to be realistic and trying to tell herself that they are living in other world. So, I guess Peter was a bit impatient that cause him to be arrogant and authoritative in a wrong way..;)
 
The thing is, I really don't think Lewis intended for the trip to Narnia to make Peter mal-adjusted in the English world. In fact, I am pretty sure that based on what he said in the end of the book, Dawn Treader, the trips were meant to make them more adjusted and faithful in their world. Peter wouldn't go for a gracious king to a mal-adjusted whiny brat in a year. There is no evidence in the text that he did. One might argue that the trip made him act more like an adult and everyone would have been praising him for his maturity and graciousness and not treating a teenager like a kid.
 
~Lava~ said:
The thing is, I really don't think Lewis intended for the trip to Narnia to make Peter mal-adjusted in the English world. In fact, I am pretty sure that based on what he said in the end of the book, Dawn Treader, the trips were meant to make them more adjusted and faithful in their world. Peter wouldn't go for a gracious king to a mal-adjusted whiny brat in a year. There is no evidence in the text that he did. One might argue that the trip made him act more like an adult and everyone would have been praising him for his maturity and graciousness and not treating a teenager like a kid.
Click to expand...
Well said, Lava.

And I agree with Pardine that Disney could have gone a better direction with Peter's character, made him interesting without making him so conflicted.
 
~Lava~ said:
The thing is, I really don't think Lewis intended for the trip to Narnia to make Peter mal-adjusted in the English world. In fact, I am pretty sure that based on what he said in the end of the book, Dawn Treader, the trips were meant to make them more adjusted and faithful in their world. Peter wouldn't go for a gracious king to a mal-adjusted whiny brat in a year. There is no evidence in the text that he did. One might argue that the trip made him act more like an adult and everyone would have been praising him for his maturity and graciousness and not treating a teenager like a kid.
Click to expand...
Well said, Lava.

And I agree with Pardine that Disney could have gone a better direction with Peter's character, made him interesting without making him so conflicted.
 
"maybe Peter was a bit impatient in the movie and the reason that I think is because he is waiting to go back in Narnia and serve his people there with his siblings."

amarlie, a question: why would Peter think he would go back? He was staying with a man who had gone to Narnia once, around 40 years earlier. Why be impatient about going back to Narnia when there was no reason to believe that they should go back?

And as I have said before, Peter learned a lot in his time as king. The movie makes it as though his experiences meant nothing. That was the biggest issue. When one goes into Narnia, that person is supposed to be a better person when they come back. Peter was worse and that was a major problem.

justBob
 
@Pardine- I do not agree with you about any of that, besides the fact that you do not like that the writers stuck that in there.. I feel that you are to hard on him. Besides, while you were trying to convince me of your opinion, you actually did the exact opposite.

Disney could have gone a better direction with Peter's character, made him interesting without making him so conflicted.
Click to expand...

I agree with you totally!!! That would have been much better than Peter's attitude before he changes... If they had his attitude after he changes that would have been perfect!!!!!
 
First, he's a character.

His purpose is to tell a story. He's not a real creature, and never has been.

Assuming he were real, he'd be solely the creation of CS Lewis. CS Lewis chose to tell a story in a certain way, with certain characters, involving certain traits of those characters. He told this story, by all accounts, because he wanted to have stories to tell kids that were good, uplifting, and that brought out the best in people. The fact that they were religious in nature is , IMHO, secondary to Lewis' goal of telling good stories that are morally sound. From what I have read of the man, a good story that is morally sound is by nature religious, and his goal in the stories was to show a side of life that people hadn't seen because of the war. Narnia wasn't an allegory in Lewis' eyes, he just wanted to show a world where Jesus lived and died just like earth, and then link that in. His goal was to show a happy place , a light in the darkness.

You have to understand the time that he wrote. People NEEDED a good king like Peter. They needed a good place like Narnia. They needed a high king who acted like a high king in a time of war, strife, and victory.

That's the method behind book Peter'. He's a character who was a boy, a boy king, a king, a boy, and then a boy king again. And in all those positions, he was admirable. Not faultless, but at least admirable.

The method behind film Peter is to simply stand in the way of Disney's goal to show teenage romance. That's the purpose. You say I am too hard on him? He was designed by a committee to speak to a 13-19 year old focus group. We had the war for the boys, and the teasing of romance for the girls. We even had the "standing up for my sister with her boyfriend" for the older brothers and the "being treated like a princess" for the older sisters. That movie reeked of focus groups and hannah montana and everything base that Lewis was trying to escape from with Narnia.

That's why it flopped. That's why I'm "hard on him." I'm hard on this "create by focus group" mentality. What you saw , in that movie, wasn't Peter Pevensie, High King of Narnia. It was Disney Stock Character D-15.

And so, yes, it's easy to criticize him. He had almost no relation to the Chronicles of Narnia as a character.
 
First, he's a character.

His purpose is to tell a story. He's not a real creature, and never has been.

Assuming he were real, he'd be solely the creation of CS Lewis. CS Lewis chose to tell a story in a certain way, with certain characters, involving certain traits of those characters. He told this story, by all accounts, because he wanted to have stories to tell kids that were good, uplifting, and that brought out the best in people. The fact that they were religious in nature is , IMHO, secondary to Lewis' goal of telling good stories that are morally sound. From what I have read of the man, a good story that is morally sound is by nature religious, and his goal in the stories was to show a side of life that people hadn't seen because of the war. Narnia wasn't an allegory in Lewis' eyes, he just wanted to show a world where Jesus lived and died just like earth, and then link that in. His goal was to show a happy place , a light in the darkness.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on that point.. Peter is just a fictional character. We are just arguing about a fictional character.. Sort of odd, when you think about it.

That's the method behind book Peter'. He's a character who was a boy, a boy king, a king, a boy, and then a boy king again. And in all those positions, he was admirable. Not faultless, but at least admirable.

The method behind film Peter is to simply stand in the way of Disney's goal to show teenage romance. That's the purpose. You say I am too hard on him? He was designed by a committee to speak to a 13-19 year old focus group. We had the war for the boys, and the teasing of romance for the girls. We even had the "standing up for my sister with her boyfriend" for the older brothers and the "being treated like a princess" for the older sisters. That movie reeked of focus groups and hannah montana and everything base that Lewis was trying to escape from with Narnia.

That's why it flopped. That's why I'm "hard on him." I'm hard on this "create by focus group" mentality. What you saw , in that movie, wasn't Peter Pevensie, High King of Narnia. It was Disney Stock Character D-15.

And so, yes, it's easy to criticize him. He had almost no relation to the Chronicles of Narnia as a character.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about BookPEter, but on the subject of MoviePeter, WOAH are we opposite in thinking. You know, I was starting waver on my opinion of MoviePeter, but after what you've been saying, I have realized that I can not back down from my defense of MoviePEter, not because I thought the change was the best thing that happened in that movie, 'cause its not, in fact, its the worst. But because you have jumped into this discussion with a "I HATE PETER AND YOU ALL ARE STUPID FOR DEFENDING HIM" attitude just makes me all the more defensive!!!
Look, let me give you some examples of BookPeter showing through in MoviePeter.

1) The White Witch scene: He runs in,ready to stop Caspian from allowing the witch to come back. He may have stepped into the enchanted circle, but I do not think that he would have known that it was enchanted. My reasoning is that there is no evidence that the witches followers ever tried to bring her back, so logically, Peter would have no knowledge of that sort of thing. And yes, Caspian is not totally to blame either..

2)After that scene with the witch: He realizes that he has messed up, big time. He knows that it was all his fault, and you can tell that he wishes Aslan was there to help sort things out... He shows his guilt, and the fact that he does feel responsible for the other soldiers death.

3) The Duel: He risks his life to try and save Narnia and to help his sisters find Aslan. He is totally selfless at that part. There is bookpeter showing through again.

4) The Battle: He realizes, halfway through the battle, that Lucy has not shown, and realizes that they have to keep fighting until Aslan comes. He knew that Aslan would come, he just did not know when. When he sees that it is all failing, battlewise and on his side, he starts to pull back. His escape is cut out, and he realizes that he will have to fight and that Aslan will come..

5) The ending scene: He realizes that his time in Narnia is up, and he realizes that Aslan has his reasons for not allowing them to ever come back to Narnia. He does not complain, but instead, GIVES CASPIAN HIS SWORD, acknowledging that Caspian is now in command and that he will never return, acknowledging Aslans authority. He handles being told that he will never return to Narnia again much better than Susan, who was ONLY happy to be here 'cause of Caspian.
 
QueenLucyTheValient said:
3) The Duel: He risks his life to try and save Narnia and to help his sisters find Aslan. He is totally selfless at that part. There is bookpeter showing through again.
QUOTE]

I didn't like most of the changes but the points QLTV brings up with the book Peter coming through some in the movie Peter is correct and to elaborate on the above quote from QLTV. Peter gave his sword to Caspian after he defeated Miraz shows too that he isn't thinking about himself. Granted Caspian did the right thing not killing Miraz but it was Caspian's right, not Peters, to, shall we say, execute Miraz. Miraz did usurp Capian's throne.

To put Caspian's change in here too. When the children saw Aslan and Kneeled and Aslan told the "Kings and Queens" to rise, Caspian did not until Aslan specified that he to was part of the kings, which is in line with the book.
Click to expand...
 
^^ I think somehow the people who are involve in making Peter so impatient is really not a good thing for book readers know Peter more than the scriptwriters' do. But in the end Peter's warm-hearts prevailed and he successfully pass the throne to Caspian as a new King of Narnia for him and Susan's time is finished in Narnia and they are not getting any younger. For Caspian, he was able to accept King Peter's sword as a new king and he said that he will keep the sword until they return but Peter mentioned that they will never come back..
 
One small thing I didn't like with Peter was that in the two battles (the castle raid and beginning of the final battle) he only said "For Narnia!" It wasn't until the trees started getting into the fight did he say "For Aslan!" as well. Also, notice how when the trees starte to get in, Caspian looked curiously at peter and Peter said, "Lucy" as opposed to "Aslan".

Just two small isues I wasn't too happy with butdidn't have an effect on the movie.

MrBob
 
Well, when he says "Lucy" he is acknowledging that Lucy found Aslan.
But in the end Peter's warm-hearts prevailed and he successfully pass the throne to Caspian as a new King of Narnia
Click to expand...

Agreed!!!!! Peters change is SOOO evident that i do not understand how anyone can NOT SEE it!!!
 
MrBob said:
One small thing I didn't like with Peter was that in the two battles (the castle raid and beginning of the final battle) he only said "For Narnia!" It wasn't until the trees started getting into the fight did he say "For Aslan!" as well. Also, notice how when the trees starte to get in, Caspian looked curiously at peter and Peter said, "Lucy" as opposed to "Aslan".

Just two small isues I wasn't too happy with butdidn't have an effect on the movie.

MrBob
Click to expand...
That is a very interesting observation. Perhaps that was supposed to indicate how shaky movie!Peter's faith was supposed to be.
 
But even moviepeters faith was not shaky in that aspect... I did notice that, though. That sort of bugs me, cause he should have said FOR ASLAN but did not. Maybe it was because he felt that Aslan was not coming, and when he realized that Aslan would not abandon them, he realized to do it for Aslan.
 
QueenLucyTheValient said:
But even moviepeters faith was not shaky in that aspect... I did notice that, though. That sort of bugs me, cause he should have said FOR ASLAN but did not. Maybe it was because he felt that Aslan was not coming, and when he realized that Aslan would not abandon them, he realized to do it for Aslan.
Click to expand...

I'm back (for a little)! I'm not sure there really was a specific reason for saying "For Narnia" instead of "For Aslan." Perhaps he wanted it shorter, and since in this battle he was mainly fighting for Narnia's freedom. He fights for Aslan, but this war is mainly about Narnia.
 
You know, it occurs to me that this debate hinges on the fact that a lot of people just dont get the importance Lewis places on the medieval idea of an anointed king in the Narnia stories.
In Peter`s case its particularly important as he is THE HIGH KING appointed by Aslan himself to rule even over all the other Narnian kings.
This means that, in effect the ONLY person to which he has to justify himself to is Aslan, nobody else has the right to question his judgement or be apologised to!

Now, the High King aspect is crucial if you want to figure out what is going on throughout the film.
As to why he expects to return to Narnia, well remember "Once a King or Queen in Narnia, ALWAYS a King or Queen".
He is bing a bit childish with his "it`s been a year" comment, he should expect it to take a lifetime if neccessary but he has every reason to assume that he is in a `Once and Future King` situation and will, at some point be called back.

Once back in Narnia he has every reason to assume that his job is to take up the kingship once more as that is what he is SUPPOSED to do!
He actually starts outs rather well, leading the others in the RIGHT direction, despite some questioning of his judgement from some quarters and its only when they reach the gorge that things begin to go wrong.
Lucy, of course sees Aslan who is showing them the way to cross but He dosn`t, undermining his confidence, as a result he `goes with the majority` and follows Susan and Trumpkin`s idea of heading downriver straight in to the Telmarine army!

Now, this one of the key areas where the book and film diverge.
In the following campfire scene in the book Lucy finds Aslan then helps the others see him, this means that by the time the Pevensies join forces with Caspian they all have a clear idea what they are supposed to be doing.

In the film Lucy does meet Aslan but it turns out to be a dream (though a prophetic one). This means Peter still has some self-confidence issues which result in him making some serious mistakes in the mid point of the film.
He actually falls in to the same trap that the Narnians have, in assuming that its Peter and his ability as a general that they need to save Narnia and not as is actually the case, for the broken link with Aslan to be renewed.
Something that only Lucy really understands at that point.
He also has to deal with a Prince Caspian that appears to think that HE should be in command, that the Pevensies are just there to put him on the Telmarine throne and help him avenge his father!

After the castle raid and the near return of the witch however, he begins to see his mistake, probably helped by Lucy.
So by that point the story is more or less back on track with Peter willing to risk his life in a duel with Miraz just to by time for Lucy to find Aslan.
(And I note that the film adds a point where Susan ALSO does this!)

By the end of the film, Peter has finally met Aslan (who probably had more than a few things to say to him!) and understands that he is no longer needed, which is why he passes his sword to Caspian.
From that point onwards it will be Caspian and his heirs who will rule in Narnia, in the name of Aslan and High King Peter and NOT because Caspians father happened to be a Telmarine King.
 
Last edited:
AsbelMctalisker said:
You know, it occurs to me that this debate hinges on the fact that a lot of people just dont get the importance Lewis places on the medieval idea of an anointed king in the Narnia stories.
In Peter`s case its particularly important as he is THE HIGH KING appointed by Aslan himself to rule even over all the other Narnian kings.
This means that, in effect the ONLY person to which he has to justify himself to is Aslan, nobody else has the right to question his judgement or be apologised to!

Now, the High King aspect is crucial if you want to figure out what is going on throughout the film.
As to why he expects to return to Narnia, well remember "Once a King or Queen in Narnia, ALWAYS a King or Queen".
He is bing a bit childish with his "it`s been a year" comment, he should expect it to take a lifetime if neccessary but he has every reason to assume that he is in a `Once and Future King` situation and will, at some point be called back.

Once back in Narnia he has every reason to assume that his job is to take up the kingship once more as that is what he is SUPPOSED to do!
He actually starts outs rather well, leading the others in the RIGHT direction, despite some questioning of his judgement from some quarters and its only when they reach the gorge that things begin to go wrong.
Lucy, of course sees Aslan who is showing them the way to cross but He dosn`t, undermining his confidence, as a result he `goes with the majority` and follows Susan and Trumpkin`s idea of heading downriver straight in to the Telmarine army!

Now, this one of the key areas where the book and film diverge.
In the following campfire scene in the book Lucy finds Aslan then helps the others see him, this means that by the time the Pevensies join forces with Caspian they all have a clear idea what they are supposed to be doing.

In the film Lucy does meet Aslan but it turns out to be a dream (though a prophetic one). This means Peter still has some self-confidence issues which result in him making some serious mistakes in the mid point of the film.
He actually falls in to the same trap that the Narnians have, in assuming that its Peter and his ability as a general that they need to save Narnia and not as is actually the case, for the broken link with Aslan to be renewed.
Something that only Lucy really understands at that point.
He also has to deal with a Prince Caspian that appears to think that HE should be in command, that the Pevensies are just there to put him on the Telmarine throne and help him avenge his father!

After the castle raid and the near return of the witch however, he begins to see his mistake, probably helped by Lucy.
So by that point the story is more or less back on track with Peter willing to risk his life in a duel with Miraz just to by time for Lucy to find Aslan.
(And I note that the film adds a point where Susan ALSO does this!)

By the end of the film, Peter has finally met Aslan (who probably had more than a few things to say to him!) and understands that he is no longer needed, which is why he passes his sword to Caspian.
From that point onwards it will be Caspian and his heirs who will rule in Narnia, in the name of Aslan and High King Peter and NOT because Caspians father happened to be a Telmarine King.
Click to expand...

Wow, I like that! I never thought about this way before!
 
Asbel said:
You know, it occurs to me that this debate hinges on the fact that a lot of people just dont get the importance Lewis places on the medieval idea of an anointed king in the Narnia stories.
In Peter`s case its particularly important as he is THE HIGH KING appointed by Aslan himself to rule even over all the other Narnian kings.
This means that, in effect the ONLY person to which he has to justify himself to is Aslan, nobody else has the right to question his judgement or be apologised to!
Click to expand...
At the same time, the King has an obligation to conduct himself in a noble way. This is something CSL clearly believed, as has been noted in anothe thread: the noble was obligated to behave with courtesy (as when Rilian unenchanted still speaks fairly to the Green witch, and when Corin is corrected for making fun of Rabadash.) A king was expected to conform to a certain standard of noblesse oblige, and film Peter fails miserably at that. It's all questionable whether Aslan would have intended that simple becuse Peter was High King no one was allowed to question his judgment. Clearly his other noble siblings did, all the time, and in the book he doesn't take it badly and demand everyone do what he says.

The film simply took the nobility out of him and left him an awkward 21st Century teen. :(
 
AsbelMctalisker said:
You know, it occurs to me that this debate hinges on the fact that a lot of people just dont get the importance Lewis places on the medieval idea of an anointed king in the Narnia stories.
In Peter`s case its particularly important as he is THE HIGH KING appointed by Aslan himself to rule even over all the other Narnian kings.
This means that, in effect the ONLY person to which he has to justify himself to is Aslan, nobody else has the right to question his judgement or be apologised to!

Now, the High King aspect is crucial if you want to figure out what is going on throughout the film.
As to why he expects to return to Narnia, well remember "Once a King or Queen in Narnia, ALWAYS a King or Queen".
He is bing a bit childish with his "it`s been a year" comment, he should expect it to take a lifetime if neccessary but he has every reason to assume that he is in a `Once and Future King` situation and will, at some point be called back.

Once back in Narnia he has every reason to assume that his job is to take up the kingship once more as that is what he is SUPPOSED to do!
He actually starts outs rather well, leading the others in the RIGHT direction, despite some questioning of his judgement from some quarters and its only when they reach the gorge that things begin to go wrong.
Lucy, of course sees Aslan who is showing them the way to cross but He dosn`t, undermining his confidence, as a result he `goes with the majority` and follows Susan and Trumpkin`s idea of heading downriver straight in to the Telmarine army!

Now, this one of the key areas where the book and film diverge.
In the following campfire scene in the book Lucy finds Aslan then helps the others see him, this means that by the time the Pevensies join forces with Caspian they all have a clear idea what they are supposed to be doing.

In the film Lucy does meet Aslan but it turns out to be a dream (though a prophetic one). This means Peter still has some self-confidence issues which result in him making some serious mistakes in the mid point of the film.
He actually falls in to the same trap that the Narnians have, in assuming that its Peter and his ability as a general that they need to save Narnia and not as is actually the case, for the broken link with Aslan to be renewed.
Something that only Lucy really understands at that point.
He also has to deal with a Prince Caspian that appears to think that HE should be in command, that the Pevensies are just there to put him on the Telmarine throne and help him avenge his father!

After the castle raid and the near return of the witch however, he begins to see his mistake, probably helped by Lucy.
So by that point the story is more or less back on track with Peter willing to risk his life in a duel with Miraz just to by time for Lucy to find Aslan.
(And I note that the film adds a point where Susan ALSO does this!)

By the end of the film, Peter has finally met Aslan (who probably had more than a few things to say to him!) and understands that he is no longer needed, which is why he passes his sword to Caspian.
From that point onwards it will be Caspian and his heirs who will rule in Narnia, in the name of Aslan and High King Peter and NOT because Caspians father happened to be a Telmarine King.
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right! Very well said.
inkspot said:
At the same time, the King has an obligation to conduct himself in a noble way. This is something CSL clearly believed, as has been noted in anothe thread: the noble was obligated to behave with courtesy (as when Rilian unenchanted still speaks fairly to the Green witch, and when Corin is corrected for making fun of Rabadash.) A king was expected to conform to a certain standard of noblesse oblige, and film Peter fails miserably at that. It's all questionable whether Aslan would have intended that simple becuse Peter was High King no one was allowed to question his judgment. Clearly his other noble siblings did, all the time, and in the book he doesn't take it badly and demand everyone do what he says.

The film simply took the nobility out of him and left him an awkward 21st Century teen. :(
Click to expand...

All I have to say is this: You are impossible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top