Message Board | Rules

Thread: Prince Caspian

Bottom of Page    Message Board > New Releases > Prince Caspian   
Has anyone see it yet?
Some students of mine saw it. They said it was better than the first movie.

I saw it, and thought it was well worth the price of admission. I'm going to see it again next Monday with my cousins and grandparents, who haven't seen it yet.

It messes with a few plot details and changes Peter's and Susan's characters a little bit; but then it brings out the idea that they are the two who are {...I just realized the original end to this sentence might be considered a spoiler if you haven't seen it or read the books...}. So I think the character change works, although I'm not fond of it. I have to go back and read the book again, though. I always thought of Caspian as younger than Peter but the movie almost makes it appear that they are the same age (or that Caspian is even a little older).

Reepicheep was brought out very well.

And the idea of being faithful was still embedded in the story -- or, rather, of being loyal, following the orders of your superiors (of those to whom your loyalty/fealty is pledged) regardless of whether or not you believe they're rational, and regardless of whether or not anyone else goes along with it, sticking to what you know is right regardless of whether or not it seems like it's "working". I was a little disappointed that Trumpkin the dwarf doesn't get to show off this aspect of his character as much as he does in the book. Lucy still gets the lion's share (pun intended) of this characterization, but she's the believer in the LWW too, so that's pretty consistent. Ed gets in on a little of this by backing up Lucy (as he does in the book)... And of course the opposite (disloyalty in the ranks) ends up being one of the downfalls of Miraz... I'd better take this discussion to the thread on the books before I end up giving the story away to those who don't know it yet.

All in all, there's more humor and more battle(s) in this one. But since the two books they were adapted from are very different stories, it's hard to say that this one is "better" than the previous one. I would say -- if you like a battle/adventure story better, then this one is better. if you like a fairy-tale better, then the first one is better.
I saw it and I think it's pretty good as a stand-alone movie, but for a Narnia fan who already has a set view of what the world beyond the wardrobe is supposed to be (and who cannot STAND it being changed for drama's sake), it's really really unfaithful to the book and disappointing in that sense.

NOTE: The content below contains spoilers!

The plot has been changed a lot (much more than LWW).
-Cornelius is captured by Miraz after Caspian's flight. (in the book, Cornelius flees from the palace later and meets Caspian at Dancing Lawn to warn him of Miraz's tracking parties.
-Trumpkin was not sent by Caspian to recieve the four children at Cair Paravel, as it was in the book. He was captured by the Telmarines while they were hunting for Caspian and then brought down near Cair to be executed.
-Caspian was being chased out of the palace (in the book he left in secret, without Miraz's minions on his tail)
-Caspian is dark-haired and speakes with a peculiar accent (he's described as fair-haired in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and it says nothing about a Telmarine accent, so I don't suppose that I can say the director was wrong to give them that wierd accent. I don't find it so becoming, though)
-Caspian and Susan have a cute little crush on each other. (NOWHERE in ANY of the books is it suggested that there's such a relationship between these two characters. I mean, "You might need to call me again." WHAT?! Totally absurd. Totally just for the sake of having a love interest was that sideplot added , as is the case with many movies. But at least the inflated importance of love interests in LOTR were accurate. I mean, Arwen WAS Aragorn's lover and Eowyn WAS Faramir's lover and Rosie WAS Sam's secret crush. But Susan and Caspian? That just springs out of nowhere.)
-the four children meet Caspian in a skirmish in the woods. Peter actually has a few swipes at Caspian, mistaking him for a Telmarine soldier. (In the book, Peter and Edmund are taken to Aslan's How by Trumpkin just as Caspian and co. are losing faith in the magic of the horn. The boys rush into a council turned sour and help Caspian fight off the traitor Nikabrik, a Wer-Wolf, and a Hag who wanted to call back the White Witch)
-Peter has an heated argument with Caspian about whether they should ambush Miraz at night or just stay in Aslan's How and defend it until Aslan comes along. Peter wins in the end and they ambush Miraz's castle at night. (In the book, Peter and Caspian were always on good terms with each other. They like each other very much. Neither is trying to assert his own authority over the other, and there's no such argument.)
-Susan, Peter, Edmund, and Caspian all go to the stealthy night attack on Miraz's castle, where Caspain screws up the plan by rushing up to Miraz' bedchamber and demanding to know the truth about his father's death when he should have been opening the castle gates for the Narnians below. (There was no such thing in any part of the book. No ambush at all.)
-The ambush was unsuccessful. Peter blames this on Caspian. Caspian blames the whole thing on Peter's idea of ambushing Miraz. They both draw their swords in their tempers, but the arrival of Trumpkin, severely injured, distracts them from actually dueling. (This never happens in the books. In the Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Edmund and Caspian do have an argument over royal authority on the Island of Deathwater. Caspian puts his hand on his hilt but never draws his sword because suddenly Aslan appears on a mountainside and they forget that the argument ever happened.)
-Aslan appears only near the very end (In the book, Lucy leads the other three and Trumpkin to see Aslan before they even meet Caspian. Aslan then gives all of them the breath of bravery, and the boys go to Caspian while the girls and Aslan wake up the trees and waters.)
-Peter offers the sword to Caspian after defeating Miraz in single combat. Caspian cannot kill his uncle, so he leaves Miraz kneeling there. A Telmarine lord then kills Miraz. (This doesnt't happen in the book. Miraz trips over something in the combat ring and Peter waits for him to get up. But then the telmarines rush out, Glostelle kills Miraz and cries out that Peter has treachourously slain Miraz while he was defenseless on the ground. The Telmarines charge forth, and the Narnians quickly join the battle.)
-the children and Telmarines pass through a forked tree trunk. (In the book it is a door without walls attached to it)
-Caspian tries to wake up the White Witch in Aslan's How, under the persuasion of Nikabrik, the Wer-Wolf and the Hag. The Witch appears, trapped in ice and asks for just one drop of a son of Adam's blood to free her. Caspian realizes that this is not what he wanted to call up and struggles, but his palm is already cut (by either Nikabrik or the Wer Wolf, I can't remember)and blood flows out. Then, the White Witch locks him in a seductive gaze and he holds out his hand to her, slowly moving closer. Peter and Edmund and Trumpkin rush in at this moment and fight Nikabrik, the Wer-wolf and the Hag. Peter stops Caspian from giving his blood to the Witch, but then the Witch turns her charm on him and Peter is under her spell. It is Edmund who saves them in the end by stabbing the ice in which the Witch is trapped. (In the book, the Withc never appears because the boys and Trumpkin rush in before the dark magic is actually performed. Caspian was never even tempted to do dark magic and spoke against Nikabrik when he proposed the calling up of the Witch. Peter, of course, was never tempted by the Witch in any of the books.)
-Peter loses faith in Aslan for a while, which is why he proposes the ambush and everything. (although he doesn't support Lucy's proposoal to follow the Aslan he can't see in the book, he doesn't lose faith in the Lion.)
-Edmund seems to be watching Peter's back a lot in the movie. He helps him out in a schoolboy fight in the railway station in the beginning. He stabs the White Witch as she was putting her spell on Peter. He shouts "Stop!" just as the fight between Peter and Caspian is about to break out. (There is very little of such a change in Edmund and Peter's relationship in the books. Peter's the mature leader and Edmund's still very immature in the book. He is still a child in that he sulks and annoys people, but he always backs Lucy up when the others don't.)

So the plot does change a lot, and the characters are really different, too. But the movie is quite good if you don't see it as an adaptation. I mean, a lot of my friends who've never read the books before loved the movie, and I can certainly see why. There's a lot fo fighting, some romance, troubled heros, the god arriving in the nick of time to save the good guys, the bad guys being defeated and then converted to good etc. etc.

Do see it. it's a fair watch.
Yes, all that is true, and I made virtually that same exact list in my head. Then I ignored it and enjoyed the movie a second time.

I used to be more of a stickler for not changing plot details, but then I learned to enjoy the genre for what it is.... now I only cringe when I see the spirit or message of a book or character mutilated, and I don't sweat the plot details quite so much.

I'm going to talk a little to the changes, so ---- possible plot spoilers ahead -----

I did cringe a little at the immaturity of the Peter character. Why, why, why can't a (modern) movie have a good, strong, straightforward, virtuous, mature, leading character portrayal? I felt faint echoes of the same kind of feeling I got when I saw Aragorn and Faramir made into less good, less strong characters in the LotR films (if there's a place to show Aragorn's character molding and growth, it'll be in the upcoming "in-betweener" movie, not in LoTR). But I learn to live with it.

(on the other hand, when a change turns out for the good of a character, I tend to like it better. So maybe it's not that I want adherence to the book so much that I want the best for the characters - I want the best plot - and I want the characters to be the best that they can be). So on the good side of things I like that Peter and Susan get to grow up a little. And you get to see that they're growing up, and are "ready" for growing up in England, -- something that sort of surprised me at the end of reading the book for the first time.

and yet again on the first hand - Peter did grow up in Narnia already; he was a good High King by all accounts - and "the air" of narnia working on him is supposed to make him (and all the rest) recall their narnian past and act and be more like the grown-up kings and queens they used to be, even though they still look like children. I just can't see him forsaking Aslan - I much prefer Lewis's idea (in the book) that Aslan commissions Peter (and Edmund and Trumpkin) to go in and deal with what they'll find - everything Peter does is "under" Aslan in this sense, even though Aslan is not present, and nothing Peter does "breaks faith". I don't mind that Peter heads a night raid on Miraz's castle - but I do mind that the movie indicates that Peter does this NOT as an act of faith in Aslan's commission of him as High King, but as an act of faith in himself in lieu of faith in Aslan -- THAT's what galls me the most.

And it's totally unneccessary: You could put the night raid into the plot (for the sake of movie drama and movie pacing) - and you could even make it an unsuccessful raid - without making Peter break faith by doing it. Consider: When Lucy finally leads the others to the place where she first saw Aslan, while standing there, Aslan does not appear, but (in the movie), the spot where Aslan stood ends up being the way down to the bottom of the gorge. Susan indicates in the next evening scene that she believes Aslan was in that spot earlier because they "found a way down the gorge, didn't they?" This makes it logical to conclude that, (in the movie), when Lucy sees Aslan, they all ought to head to that spot, and they will then find the path that Aslan wants them to take.

Now the second time she sees him, it seems to be portrayed (in the movie) as a sort of prophetic dream sequence. The movie makes out that Lucy wakes up and immediately goes looking for Aslan in the spot her dream indicates, (as she should), and they end up meeting Caspian in the place where Lucy has dreamed Aslan is.

Following the previous logic... you could portray this meeting as an indicator that Aslan wants them to follow the path of helping Caspian whatever way they can, until what time Aslan should show himself to Lucy again, indicating another path to follow. This could be taken as a different way of portraying Aslan's commission (in the book) to go and "deal with what they find there".

Instead of doing this, you find the movie makes it out that Lucy wants everyone to wait for Aslan and not do anything while waiting. This is totally contrary to the spirit of the book, where you do what you can, the best you can, with the orders you have and the resources you've got.... Then in the end of the film, there's an inconsistency: Lucy and Susan are not to do what Lucy said to do before (that is, to wait) -- rather they are to go search for Aslan while the boys do what they can to deal with the matter at hand, until Aslan shows up with new orders, (or new help), or until they die in the adventure.

(Of course to have written the screenplay my way means other plot problems, such as "if lucy and susan are included in the commission to "deal with what you find there", why would they go to search for aslan again if she doesn't have another vision of him?" - but that could be inserted, since we're messing with the plot anyways!)

But having said all that, the rest of the film DOES capture quite a bit of the ideas of the book, and so long as I remember that they do put Peter's character/attitude/acceptance of Aslan's orders all right by the end of the movie, it's very well done.
Why, why, why can't a (modern) movie have a good, strong, straightforward, virtuous, mature, leading character portrayal?

Because Orlando Bloom cannot possibly act in all movies out there.
Who said i was talking about him?
What, you wanted Mr. Bean to star in it? Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
Which bean, Rowan Atkinson or Sean Bean?
Rowan Atkinson Elf With a Big Grin Smilie
I saw this about a week ago and here's my two cents or pennies as the English way would go...

I was quite impressed with the photography and design of it all, the background that was Narnia was clearly well done and did a fair amount of justice to what Narnia originally was, but the general storyline I didn't enjoy, I'm sure the books are well done, but I felt that some of the things in it were unnecessary... like the White Witch making a re-appearance, nothing was actuallly gained by adding her into all the problems, as it ended as quickly as it started, with one quick stab from Edward, and then the story carried on like that hadn't happened. Another moment which is more or less impossible, Peter fought one on one with the 'Uncle-King' with shields and swords before the Narnian's fortress, the Uncle-King manages to hit Peter's sword away, and then swaps his shield into his other hand and socks him one right in the nose, and yet Peter gets up straight away seemingly not-dizzy and goes on to beat him... Just seems that he could take a metallic punch to the face pretty well, but gotten entirely beaten by a couple of lads in a train station Orc Going Huh Smilie three on two if I remember, Peter and Edward...

All in all, it was probably a good take on the books, but some parts were just not necessary...

Of course, this is purely a movie-goer's oppinion, if I did read the books, I might see some sense in all the history and stories Orc Smiling Smilie
I've never read narnia at all... therefore i have kept myself away from movie theaters and dvd shops : Wiggle Smilie
I recommend reading the 'Chronicles of Narnia', starting with The Wizard's Nephew, as it tells the story of Narnia's creation as witnessed by the nephew, his semi-wicked uncle, and the very wicked witch. Then you can graduate to the more contemporay The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. and on to the other books which then follow in the order published. Read Smilie
thanks grondy i'll get myself a copy as soon as i can find a english version Smile Smilie
for some reson i love reading books in english Smile Smilie
Pardon me, Grondy. But the creation of Narnia is told in The Magician's Nephew. I agree--it makes more sense to read these books in the story order, rather than in order of publication.

It's also important to know that The Magician's Nephew is very different from the rest of the series, in case you do not care for that book. I liked it, but some people don't.
The Magician's Nephew Yes that is the correct title. Thanks for the correction Gandalf, I got the wrong title from my shoddy memory, Elf Rolling Eyes Smilie instead of looking for the book in my library or by googling it.
I think I may do that, I was probably wrong in some things I said before anyway, I don't really know the main story line from the books... I would probably get slated in Planet-Lewis for saying what I said Orc Smiling Smilie
Absolutely agree with you, Elanorraine!!! I HATED the whole Peter-turning-against-Aslan thing. It repulsed me even more than the whole Faramir-growing-up sequence in the LOTR films. Oh the things writers do for added drama! There just HAS to be a rebel in the good guys' tent.
Just for the record... I disagree about reading the Magician's Newphew first! The order of publication is a better order in which to read 'em.

You wouldn't insist that someone read the Silmarillion before the Hobbit and the LotR, would you? Just because it's chronologically first in the story doesn't mean it should be consumed by the public in that order. Of course, I also think no one should watch episodes I-III of Star Wars before watching episoded IV-VI.

You just don't get the same sense of mystery and wonder: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was written first, and it does a better job of introducing you to Narnia than the Magician's Nephew does. Read it first, and read the Last Battle Last.

And then, if you have the stomach for a sort of scholar's take on the thing, read "Planet Narnia" afterwards.
You wouldn't insist that someone read the Silmarillion before the Hobbit and the LotR, would you?

Some people do, though I'd still start people out with The Hobbit and I won't argue over which book of the Chronicles of Narnia or movie to read or see first, most of them can stand alone, though reading them in a particular order will lead to more character development and easier history lesson. Teacher Smilie