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

[Sir Tom the Dragon Knight]

I just want to say one thing: The siege on Miraz's castle actually was in the book. However, the Pevensies weren't there to experience it. In the book, the siege was Caspian's idea, and the only reason it failed was because Wimbleweather was a little too slow to follow an order.
Still, I think the siege turned out great in the movie.

 

[MissReepicheep]

When I watched PC last, for the first time in a little under a year, I was aboslutely appaled by how dreadful Peter's behavior was. I am a lot more mature than I was when I first saw the movie... and now I see fully what a JERK Peter was. I thought to myself, If these guys [Peter and Caspian] were in my youth group, I would hate them. So why do I tolerate this in a movie?!

I honestly feel embarrassed for liking the movie as much as I did when it came out in 2008. It's not a bad movie as far as many movies go, and I still like it. But to be as obsessed as I was? *shudders at the memory* I'm just glad I hadn't joined this forum then... my views on so many things have changed drastically.

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I just want to say one thing: The siege on Miraz's castle actually was in the book. However, the Pevensies weren't there to experience it. In the book, the siege was Caspian's idea, and the only reason it failed was because Wimbleweather was a little too slow to follow an order.

Actually, it wasn't. The only thing mentioned is a battle near Aslan's How which didn't turn out well because of some of the factors you mention. The book doesn't explicitly state that it was Caspian who planned it, though it's a reasonable inference that he and his council did. It was the aftermath of that battle that forced the decision to wind Queen Susan's Horn and send the messengers to their destination.

The last time Miraz' castle is mentioned in the book is when Caspian is running from it after the birth of Miraz' son.

 

[AsbelMctalisker]

Asbel, the book has the four siblings sitting alone at a quiet, fairly deserted train station when they feel the magic pulling them to Narnia. We have no idea what they had been doing the previous summer. As for when the movie sequence took place, there is no reason it didn't take place at the end of summer. I would imagine that they would be wearing regular clothes if they were going home.

The station is actually described as a junction station where they are changing trains so it wouldn`t be as quiet as all that!
But otherwise, no we dont know from the book what the Pevensies were doing during them.

As to it being rather different in the film, well there is the headline on the newstand reading "Raids Over".
Now, if you know something about the history of the Battle of Britain and its aftermath then you will know that `The Blitz`, the mass bombing of London slowly ended by the Spring/Summer of 1941.
Its unlikely newstands would still displaying that headline well in to August when the Pevensies would be returning to school after the summer break, so an earlier date is more likely.
Also, there is the fact that they are BOARDING a tube train from `The Strand` Underground station. Now that station (which is now closed) was located opposite one of London`s main railway termini, Charing Cross and was a station on the Underground`s Northern Line (and on a possible direct route to Finchley).
That, to me indicates that they had probably just got off a train (or trains) which had brought them in to London from their schools in the country and were waiting for a tube train to take them home. If they were coming FROM Finchley they would be getting off the train not boarding it!

On the subject of the whole Susan/Caspian thing.
While this was on the whole a bit pointless it did give Caspian the motivation to follow the girls when they go to look for Aslan.
Without his intervention that last Telmarine soldier would have killed Susan!

 

[MrBob]

"The station is actually described as a junction station where they are changing trains so it wouldn`t be as quiet as all that!"

From the second page (in my edition):
"It was an empty, sleepy, country station and there was hardly anyone on the platform except themselves."

"`The Blitz`, the mass bombing of London slowly ended by the Spring/Summer of 1941."

Asbel, it ended around mid May of 1941. Would papers in June still be saying that the raids were over? The final London blitz was May 10, 1941. But truthfully, whether they are going to school or coming from school is not very important.

Regarding the raid, in the books, Miraz's army was stationed just outside the How. There was no way they could have gotten to the castle.

MrBob

 

[MissReepicheep]

All I can think is... I need to re-read the book. I don't remember anything about the battle before the Pevensie's came.

 

[QueenLucyTheValient]

Hey, y'all, I never said that I liked that they changed Peter's character, all I was saying was that I understood how he might act that way. I like his character in the book much better, but I did not let it ruin the movie. I really understand how he could have acted the way he did, but it would have been a lot better had there not been the fight at the train station. I think that all he cares about was Narnia, and when he gets angry, he is getting angry because he cares about Narnia and, yes, wants it done his way, but also just wants the best for Narnia..

 

[Sir Tom the Dragon Knight]

A military leader naturally would act with that kind of frustration in such a desperate situation. Peter wasn't being a jerk, he simply had trouble controlling his temper due to the seriousness of the situation. When lives are at stake who are your responsibility to defend, and if you're a soldier, it's only natural that you'd lose your temper when things go wrong. Peter had a lot to be upset about. We shouldn't fault him too much.

 

[QueenLucyTheValient]

THANK YOU Sir Tom the Dragon Knight!!!! He had a lot to handle, a lot on his shoulders. And then everyone doubts him.. He had a lot to be upset about in Narnia. None of hos plans went right except the last one, when he sends Lucy to find Aslan. Caspian messes up a lot, and so he has a right to be mad at him...

 

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The two problems with that excuse are: 1) the "military situation" was a total creation of the screenwriters. In the book, there are no pitched battles between the Old Narnians and the Telmarines until after the duel, so Peter would have had no occasion to fail as a field leader, and 2) the screen writers presumed that Peter, and the rest of the Pevensies, would have reverted completely to their prior selves when they returned through the wardrobe. Not only would they have lost their age, but also their maturity, experience, and learning. Lewis makes clear that they did not lose their recollection of everything that happened to them in Narnia. Since Peter would have learned that petulance and immaturity gained you nothing, particularly in a military situation, he would not have exhibited those traits - and, indeed, when he meets Caspian in the book, he does not. The pivotal line in the book that defines how Peter understands his relation to Caspian is, "I haven't come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it." Peter is quite clear about what Aslan wishes him to do, and never wavers from it.

 

[MissReepicheep]

Frustration and tension in said military situation is understandable. But yelling, stomping, whining and fighting people isn't.

 

[inkspot]

I agree with this completely! People are much too critical of many things with Prince Caspian (I'm guilty of this myself), but having watched the movie again and thought about it, it really was quite true to the book in many ways and you really can't blame Peter too much. I know how I would feel in his position, and I probably would have done the same, even after having been a king for many years in Narnia.

Welcome Sir Tom, I did not see you post before. But I think you are mistaken in your supposition, as PoTW points out here:

The problem with all these psycho-conjectures that you all are indulging in is that none of them have anything to do with the characters in the books. You're doing what the screenwriters did - projecting what you'd do, and how you'd feel, onto Peter, rather than letting the character Lewis wrote come through. That's why so many of us detest the Caspian film - not because of changes to the action (e.g. the night raid), but because of totally unnecessary changes to the characters.

A military leader naturally would act with that kind of frustration in such a desperate situation. Peter wasn't being a jerk, he simply had trouble controlling his temper due to the seriousness of the situation. When lives are at stake who are your responsibility to defend, and if you're a soldier, it's only natural that you'd lose your temper when things go wrong. Peter had a lot to be upset about. We shouldn't fault him too much.

No. A leader who is reduced to a fit of anger is not a leader. He is a whiner trying to be a leader. Again, PoTW has the truth of the matter:

The two problems with that excuse are: 1) the "military situation" was a total creation of the screenwriters. In the book, there are no pitched battles between the Old Narnians and the Telmarines until after the duel, so Peter would have had no occasion to fail as a field leader, and 2) the screen writers presumed that Peter, and the rest of the Pevensies, would have reverted completely to their prior selves when they returned through the wardrobe. Not only would they have lost their age, but also their maturity, experience, and learning. Lewis makes clear that they did not lose their recollection of everything that happened to them in Narnia. Since Peter would have learned that petulance and immaturity gained you nothing, particularly in a military situation, he would not have exhibited those traits - and, indeed, when he meets Caspian in the book, he does not. The pivotal line in the book that defines how Peter understands his relation to Caspian is, "I haven't come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it." Peter is quite clear about what Aslan wishes him to do, and never wavers from it.

Frustration and tension in said military situation is understandable. But yelling, stomping, whining and fighting people isn't.

Exactly. A leader experiences frustration without losing control. Peter had reigned as High King for years and would not have been reduced to behaving like a child who can't control his temper -- not in Narnia, and not in that other place, England.

The film was very good, and I enjoyed it, but it was not a film about the Pevensies. It was about some 21st Century American children who were called into Narnia, and how they would behave.

 

[QueenLucyTheValient]

2) the screen writers presumed that Peter, and the rest of the Pevensies, would have reverted completely to their prior selves when they returned through the wardrobe. Not only would they have lost their age, but also their maturity, experience, and learning. Lewis makes clear that they did not lose their recollection of everything that happened to them in Narnia. Since Peter would have learned that petulance and immaturity gained you nothing, particularly in a military situation, he would not have exhibited those traits - and, indeed, when he meets Caspian in the book, he does not. The pivotal line in the book that defines how Peter understands his relation to Caspian is, "I haven't come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it." Peter is quite clear about what Aslan wishes him to do, and never wavers from it.

I agree with you on that point to the letter!!! It is such a good point. The screenwriters added their 'real life' view to the movie on the point with Peter, and their 'real life view' was not the best, and in fact, wrong. They believed that no one could handle the stuff Peter handled in PC the way he handled it in the book, they felt that it was too unrealistic. That was wrong. People could have handled the situation so much better than that, I hope that I would be included in those. I know that I would have some MoviePeter-tendencies, but I would try my hardest to be like BookPeter..

Frustration and tension in said military situation is understandable. But yelling, stomping, whining and fighting people isn't.

I disagree, not because you were wrong, but because that is not how Peter acted. He was not whining, stomping, and complaining. He was reacting in a way that was not good, but it was not that bad. Peter was only frustrated, tense, and worried. He seemed to be worried about the fate of Narnia. The frustration comes from the worry, partly because of Caspian's attitude and what he did that messed everything up... Tense comes from both...

 

[MissReepicheep]

He yelled at people on numerous occasions. He may not have literally whined, but he had a complainy attitude. You know he fought and threatened Caspian.

You can give excuses for him all you like, but you can't deny that he behaved in this way.

OK, it's possible that he didn't stomp. But that's not the point.

And I'm not saying that Caspian didn't do things wrong. But Peter is responsible for his actions, regardless. Yes, he was provoked, but lots of the things he did were absolutely uncalled for.

And he was really rude and disrespectful to Trumpkin, too.

 

[QueenLucyTheValient]

He was only disrespectful to Trumpkin once, and in reality, Trumpkin was the one being disrespectful. He doubted Peter when he should not have. One should not doubt those in authority, even when you may know that they are wrong. Trumpkin was not following that 'rule of etiquette' if you will.

He yelled at people on numerous occasions. He may not have literally whined, but he had a complainy attitude. You know he fought and threatened Caspian.

You can give excuses for him all you like, but you can't deny that he behaved in this way.

Just like you can give reasons for his being a total jerk but you can not deny that he changed in the end?
Believe it or not, he was not whiney at all! No, not in my opinion. He was not acting the best, but he was not complaining, except for just after the fight at the trainstation when he does complain.. That is the only time he complains, unless your definition of complained is different from the one in the dictionary, which is Express dissatisfaction or annoyance about a state of affairs or an event. He does not do that at all... He may be frustrated about what is going on, but he never complains about it, he is high king after all, he would not have spoiled his reputation by whining..

 

[Sir Tom the Dragon Knight]

Many of you (Queen Lucy the Valiant excluded) don't quite seem to understand just what warfare can do to a man, especially a great veteran. I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you understand my point of view.
Many Narnians died in the movie because of Caspian. Caspian failed, not Peter. In Peter's situation (I know, projecting myself into the character again), I would have been a bit harsher on Caspian than Peter was. I would have beat the snot out of him for senselessly causing the massacre of so many good soldiers simply out of his own selfish ambition. I wouldn't have killed Caspian, but I would teach him a hard lesson for sure. You can think I'm wrong for thinking this way if you want to, but I believe that when someone causes someone else to get killed in such a way, they deserve a beating.

 

[MissReepicheep]

That's so ridiculous that I won't even respond to it.

QLTV, I never said that Trumpkin wasn't at fault. But I would have acted better in that situation than Peter did. I would have been open to the suggestion that maybe I was wrong, while Peter flatly refused to admit possible error. He was disrespectful and rude. So was Trumpkin, but Peter was the high king, and he should have known known to behave.

One should not doubt those in authority, even when you may know that they are wrong. Trumpkin was not following that 'rule of etiquette' if you will.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this. If you think someone's wrong, that means you're doubting the person. I don't think that it's wrong to suggest that someone may be mistaken. Better suggest a different route than walk straight off a cliff because you're not supposed to doubt authority.

LOL! He wouldn't ruin his reputation by whining?!?!? But he would act like a jerk and fight with Caspian? He would refuse to take any advice, but insisted he was always right? And when proved wrong, would pout? There was hardly a moment when Peter wasn't misbehaving in some way or another.

I probably ought to watch the movie yet again, and take notes of all the times Peter misbehaves.

That WAS the definition of complain that I was using. It was smart of you, though, to try to clarify that.

Peter never outwardly says, "I wish we had never come here! This is terrible! Nobody likes me! I'll go eat worms!" But that doesn't mean he doesn't complain. Several comments like, "I think we've waited for Aslan long enough," while not necessarily outwardly complaining, are said in a grumbly attitude.

Right now, I'm drawing a mental blank, but I WILL come back with more examples later, I promise.

I don't think that Peter ever really showed humility or tried to mend his ways. I never felt that the issue was resolved.

My sister and I joke that when Aslan says, "Your brother and sister have learned all they can from Narnia," it didn't mean that they had 'passed the test', rather that their capacity to learn anything had met its limit.

 

[inkspot]

Many of you (Queen Lucy the Valiant excluded) don't quite seem to understand just what warfare can do to a man, especially a great veteran.

What it doesn't do is turn him into a spoiled child. If anything, it makes him more stoic and battle-ready. Peter didn't exhibit these traits at all.

Many Narnians died in the movie because of Caspian. Caspian failed, not Peter.

Peter is the high king and this was his idea; Caspian didn't support the Castle Raid and was talked into it by Peter. When it began to go wrong, as the leader Peter had the opportunity to withdraw and cut his losses, and he chose not to. He was responsible for the loss of life because he was responsible for the whole debacle. Another way in which movie Peter betrayed his Narnian honor was by blaming Caspian. A true leader would have taken responsibility and would have made it clear that he did not blame Caspian, but himself. Peter did not act like a leader, at all.

That nasty, "Ask him!" was really, really below the honor of a Narnian king.

I would have beat the snot out of him for senselessly causing the massacre of so many good soldiers simply out of his own selfish ambition. I wouldn't have killed Caspian, but I would teach him a hard lesson for sure. You can think I'm wrong for thinking this way if you want to, but I believe that when someone causes someone else to get killed in such a way, they deserve a beating.

I definitely think you are wrong, and I think a leader who reacted like that would not be worthy of his followers' allegiance. The onus was on Peter to make the raid work or fail, and if it were to fail, to save as many lives as he could. He failed in his responsibilities, and blaming Caspian was beneath him.

 

[Sir Tom the Dragon Knight]

You seem to ignore the fact that the plan would have worked if Caspian hadn't screwed up.

 

[MissReepicheep]

CASPIAN WAS NOT FAULTLESS!!! We have said so again and again. But REGARDLESS of ANYBODY ELSE'S actions, Peter is responsible for his own. Of course, Peter would be frustrated. But that does not give him the freedom to have a temper tantrum.