Handling the changes they made to PC and their effects on Dawn Treader [Archive] - The Dancing Lawn

View Full Version : Handling the changes they made to PC and their effects on Dawn Treader

~Lava~

07-09-2008, 05:15 PM

inkspot

07-09-2008, 05:53 PM

Do you think they have to say or do anything about the Caspian/Susan romance to prepare us for Caspian's falling for Ramandu's Daughter (aka StarGirl)? Maybe they will just ignore the whole Susaspian thing.

lieke

07-09-2008, 06:25 PM

We all know that some not-so-wise changes were made to PC and that those changes will effect the story line in Dawn Treader. Give your suggestions here as to how they are going to fix those problems in the next movie. I am wanting Serious suggestions.
Hm, i'm not sure what changes that they made in PC will effect Voyage that badly. I mean, Peter and Susan won't be 'bothering' us in that sense anymore. Caspian seemed like a good choice for a king in PC, Ed and Lucy were great, which is a good thing for the voyage, not to mention Reepicheep...

What is the big problem you see? If you would tell us that we might give serious suggestions ;)

I, too, think they will ignore Susan/Caspian for most of it, after all, it was 'just' a kiss, it's not like they were engaged or something.

~Lava~

07-09-2008, 09:28 PM

I hope they ignore Susaspian too, but Peter's behavior and, for that matter, Caspian's do kind of effect the storyline. How can they be so condemning of Eustace's brattiness if everybody took Peter's so sagely? I think they will have to address how Peter and Susan behaved somehow, for the sakes of the non-bookies. I think the best way would be to have the two Pevensies explain why Peter and Su weren't with them at Eustace's house (or why they were at Eustace's house in the first place) there they could say something about Peter's improvement and Susan's forgetfulness.

inkspot

07-10-2008, 10:49 AM

Oh, I am sure they will explain why Susan and Peter aren't at Eustace's house; that will only make sense. But no, I think that the director will believe no one will make any connection between Peter's brattiness and Eustace's. I don't think they will address behavioral issues in PC at all. That's my guess.

Copperfox

07-10-2008, 11:05 AM

The Pharaohs of Egypt, having control over what passed for news media in their days, always covered up their failures. As long as a defeat or calamity was not so complete as to mean the Pharaoh was actually killed or forced off his throne, he could and would pretend that the defeat or calamity never happened. That's why Egyptian records don't admit to the plagues that God brought on them through Moses.

In a somewhat analogous way, I believe that the Walden crowd, when making VODT, will simply bury their mistreatment of Peter in silence. No mention at all will be made in any way of their having redefined Peter as a brat in PC; they'll pretend they never did it. In fact, I will be very surprised if even the name "Peter" is spoken more than once in the entire VODT movie.

inkspot

07-10-2008, 11:09 AM

I agree they won't acknowledge his behavioral issues, but I think they will have to explain why Lucy and Ed are staying with Eustace, and Su and Peter aren't.

Copperfox

07-10-2008, 11:50 AM

Yes, that will be the one and only time that Peter gets mentioned.

And since VODT makes Edmund a lame duck as PC made Peter a lame duck, I won't be surprised if they make _Edmund_ appear mostly to blame in the unpleasantness on Deathwater Island, so as to make the reformed Eustace look better, the same way they made Edmund look better than Peter in PC. That's pure Hollywood: throw away the old star to make room for the new.

lieke

07-10-2008, 01:27 PM

That would be too easy. First making Ed bad and the rest good, then making Peter bad and the rest good, then making Ed bad again? I'm not so sure.

What i would love if if they would show Peter and Susan saying goodbye to Lucy and Ed in the beginning, like: when Susan and their parents go to the States, leaving the rest of the children with their aunt and uncle, and Peter with the prof, that would be a neat moment, that still could fit in beautifully. But since both William and Anna are not at all performing in the next movie that's not going to happen i guess :(. But that would give them a chance to show that Peter has 'changed' again (it wouldn't make PC up, but save what's left perhaps ;)).

Probably wishfull thinking though...:rolleyes:

Mrs. Pevensie

07-10-2008, 01:48 PM

I actually didn't mind the changes they made to PC! I thought that Peter's new attitude was quite appropriate for the situation! You have to remember that for Peter it had only been a year since he had been High King over all of Narnia, so you have to understand that he felt threatened by Caspian!

And bringing up the subject of Will and Anna being in VotDT...that isn't going to happen! I'm just about 100% posotove that they will not be showing their faces in the new movie!

I think that no matter how they change Edmunds attitude for VotDT, Skandar will still shine as a brilliant actor! His rude and bratty behavior in LWW was amazing as well as his mighty loyalty and witty humor in PC! So any way you slice it I think that Skandar Keynes will perform in such a way that we will love him no matter what disposition he has as Edmund!

inkspot

07-10-2008, 02:00 PM

Yah, I like Lieke's idea so much, but we are pretty cure it can't happen because no Will and no Anna. :(

We had talked in another thread about whether they would wreck Ed's character in VDT the way they did to Peter's in PC, but: we have the new director, Apted, who did the lovely Amazing Grace, and I think we can trust him to do better.

(Although Amazing Grace did key on the main character's fight against slavery and did not overly emphasize, or emphasize at all, that the man was also very active in many Christian charities including homes for unwed moms, lots of evangelism outreaches and other important stuff ... I know the theme was the anti-slavery, but the lead's true Christian nature could have been more forcefully portrayed.)

lieke

07-10-2008, 02:10 PM

Oh, very true Mrs. Pevensie, i'm pretty sure Skandar could nail any job they ask him to do, after all: i loved his performance in LWW too, and there he was the nasty one. I just don't hope that they will make him bad or something for Voyage, you know: we've seen him bad, but more important: we've seen him turning good, and it seems weird that when one turns from that bad to good, you go back to really bad again while you were perfectly fine the year before. And he is a good character in the book, and i think it would be really stupid for them to change it, because 1. Everyone loves Voyage's Edmund as described in the books, 2. They would do the same thing they did to Peter, that's too easy, 3. They already have a 'bad' character, Eustace. (The discussion about wether or not Peter's role was better or worse than in the books is i think not something for discussion here, and i don't think we'll figure it out completely either. You have your opinion about it, i have mine, and that's fine:D.)

But i'm pretty sure that Peter and Susan won't appear in Voyage either, i just think that it would be great. That could be a time to show Susan's turning away, and Peter's maturing since PC.

I don't know about directors, we'll see when it comes out:)

Knight of Narnia

07-10-2008, 04:28 PM

I agree with Copperfox's statement on this on. PC drew strong reactions from the Narnia fanbase, most of them bad. If your fanbase doesn't believe in a movie, then it would be harder to get "peripheral" fans to go see it.

Walden/Disney will more than likely sweep the unpleasantries from PC under the proverbial carpet and bring the fans a movie that is more faithful to its source. Disney/Walden are interested in one thing: MONEY. PC disappointed them in this respect, LWW didn't. LWW stayed close to the book, PC didn't. So Disney/Walden should come to an understanding that by keeping close to the book they should make more money.

Elentari

07-10-2008, 07:04 PM

1. I agree with Copperfox's statement on this on. PC drew strong reactions from the Narnia fanbase, most of them bad. If your fanbase doesn't believe in a movie, then it would be harder to get "peripheral" fans to go see it.

Walden/Disney will more than likely sweep the unpleasantries from PC under the proverbial carpet and bring the fans a movie that is more faithful to its source. Disney/Walden are interested in one thing: MONEY. PC disappointed them in this respect, LWW didn't. LWW stayed close to the book, PC didn't. So Disney/Walden should come to an understanding that by keeping close to the book they should make more money.

I agree as well. I was not a part of this forum before PC (seeing others reactions and concern for future movies, as well as a desire to discuss the books brought me here), but it encouraged me that I was not the only fan to be disappointed. --> PC drew strong reactions from the Narnia fanbase, most of them bad. If your fanbase doesn't believe in a movie, then it would be harder to get "peripheral" fans to go see it.

I should hope they realize--as Del Toro seems to with the Hobbit movies--that pleasing the fan base is of the most importance...they're the ones who will see it multiple times, buy all the merchandise, and majorly promote. Right?

I sincerely hope that Voyage IS more like the book and that the writers/director SEE that continuing to make films that upset fans is NOT logical (what DO they teach them at these schools?) As for the original discussion--

2. I actually didn't mind the changes they made to PC! I thought that Peter's new attitude was quite appropriate for the situation! You have to remember that for Peter it had only been a year since he had been High King over all of Narnia, so you have to understand that he felt threatened by Caspian!

I'm sorry, Mrs. P, but I must disagree completely. Sure, if this was just a movie, I would agree that the changes were appropriate, but in this case if Peter's behavior was "appropriate", then Lewis would have WRITTEN his character that way. As it was, Lewis had a much more NOBLE plan for Peter and he did not seem to feel that making Peter "feel threatened" was of any upmost importance to the plot. Maybe it was an attempt to modernize, maybe it was--as Copperfox chooses to claim--more purposeful than that, the answer I do not know, but I DO know that his behavior--while "appropriate" maybe by today's "standards" was not in line with the character Lewis wrote, and therefore the character Lewis INTENDED Peter to be.

3. And since VODT makes Edmund a lame duck as PC made Peter a lame duck, I won't be surprised if they make _Edmund_ appear mostly to blame in the unpleasantness on Deathwater Island, so as to make the reformed Eustace look better, the same way they made Edmund look better than Peter in PC. That's pure Hollywood: throw away the old star to make room for the new.

Deathwater Island has nothing to do with Eustace, reformed or not. Deathwater is between Caspian and Edmund and any display of it should make BOTH look as stupid as they actually were. I understand your point in elevating Eustace, however, no matter how it is done and I hope they will not have to do much. Also, I'm forming a belief that Edmund is the "darling" of the movie people (or maybe just Skandar, though it's not his fault, poor dear), and his character may yet go out grandly, as Peter's ought to have. Also remember, Copperfox, that this is TECHNICALLY Caspian's last movie as well, with the exception of 2 very brief scenes in Silver Chair. Anything done to Edmund may be done to Caspian since he is not "technically" a returning main. I think Edmund/Caspian may be a source of conflict, but I am not so sure either of them will be promoted more than the other since neither are really returning.

Copperfox

07-10-2008, 07:15 PM

That really agrees with my point! Caspian will be, as you say, nearly as much a lame duck to be discarded--his part in "Silver Chair" not being calculated to keep up the teen-idol image. So they can indeed make both Caspian and Edmund look even MORE stupid than the book depicts, while Eustace looks better even if only by default.

Mrs. Pevensie

07-10-2008, 07:56 PM

Everyone has such great points! All I know is that I hope they don't change VotDT very much! If anything I would like them to keep Edmund as a nice guy...cuz he seems to be a bit of a sour puss and a meanie (to Eustace) in the book!

Elentari

07-10-2008, 08:27 PM

If anything I would like them to keep Edmund as a nice guy...cuz he seems to be a bit of a sour puss and a meanie (to Eustace) in the book!

If it makes you feel better, Mrs. P, Edmund only acts grumpy with Eustace because Eustace is so incredibly difficult to be around. I think we can ALL sympathize with Ed being slightly annoyed. ;) And I don't think he was mean--that role belongs solely to Eustace! If anything, Ed was/is incredibly nice considering who he was dealing with--Caspian also, though he doesn't have the background on E that Lucy and Ed do being cousins.

That really agrees with my point! Caspian will be, as you say, nearly as much a lame duck to be discarded--his part in "Silver Chair" not being calculated to keep up the teen-idol image. So they can indeed make both Caspian and Edmund look even MORE stupid than the book depicts, while Eustace looks better even if only by default.

Glad we agree, CF. :D

BarbarianKing

07-11-2008, 01:23 AM

I think (sadly)that we will probably have more luck with the "silly" changes proposed in another thread than with any serious plot line that is closer to the book. IMO nothing they attempt (unless it's from the "other" thread) will make up for the way they treated Peter in PC.

Copperfox

07-11-2008, 01:46 AM

Well, one thing _might_ undo the damage.

Take the scene where Reepicheep gets the idea to push the ship clear of the sea-serpent before its coils close. Without taking anything away from the value of Reepicheep's quick thinking, let's say that the sea-serpent is a little smarter than in the book, and it begins to pursue the Dawn Treader. Suddenly, a huge framed photograph appears in the sky: a photograph of a British World War Two Hurricane heavy fighter plane. Suddenly the plane comes to life, swoops over the Dawn Treader, and cuts loose with guns and bombs at the sea-serpent, killing it. The plane does a wing-wagging flyover of the Dawn Treader, and we see that the pilot is Peter before he flies back out through the suspended picture frame.

This would be LESS of a violation of Mr. Lewis' Narnian concepts than what Walden intentionally chose to do to Peter in "Prince Caspian."

Elentari

07-11-2008, 12:06 PM

Sorry, Copperfox, but I am dying with laughter. :D I could picture your idea clearly and I got a major case of the giggles!

inkspot

07-11-2008, 03:31 PM

Hey, this belongs over in the "give the filmmakers silly ideas" thread!
:)

Darth Sparhawk

07-11-2008, 04:36 PM

Make Aslan to die in eternal battle with Tash and start cycle of new rebirths again.
I am tolerant to changes, but even I wouldn't accept eastern mysticism in the movies.

BarbarianKing

07-11-2008, 08:41 PM

go to the "silly" thread and post your ideas there. I think Lava intended this one to be for serious discussion. :p So go there and have fun!

Darth Sparhawk

07-12-2008, 01:17 AM

HugsForReepicheep

07-12-2008, 04:01 PM

So they can indeed make both Caspian and Edmund look even MORE stupid than the book depicts, while Eustace looks better even if only by default.

The curious thing here is that Eustace, though improving, doesn't become a hero or anything like that in VoDT. Not even in SC, where both he and Jill are big complainers (sp?). Making Eustace hero-like would, if they have any plans of doing more Narnia movies, end up changing a lot of other characters and plots to fit the change.

So I hope - as stupid as this may make the sequence - they really just forget about the bad changes they did and try to make this one as book-like as possible, not trying to solve previous problems by making more changes. The odds are that, if they try to make up for PC, they'll ruin things faster, I suppose.

BarbarianKing

07-12-2008, 07:19 PM

The curious thing here is that Eustace, though improving, doesn't become a hero or anything like that in VoDT. Not even in SC, where both he and Jill are big complainers (sp?). Making Eustace hero-like would, if they have any plans of doing more Narnia movies, end up changing a lot of other characters and plots to fit the change.

That's what they did with PC.

Elentari

07-12-2008, 09:01 PM

Barbarian King--That's what they did with PC.

Well, kind of, but not really. In PC they made changes, but I don't think any of those changes were based on or because of changes they made in LWW. Besides the fact that as many fans have pointed out, the changes in LWW were more "insert invented character with invented lines for an invented purpose that fits in with the plot" (aka the fox) more than plot changing changes (Peter vs. Caspian, raid on castle, mixing up what happens where so nobody is exactly sure when anything is going to happen since it's not following the basic layout of events, bookwise). In Voyage, the changes made to the character of Caspian will DIRECTLY affect the movie, while changes to Peter, Susan, and to a degree Edmund and Lucy, will not (even though the 2 are in it, they were not "messed with"). The other characters are all new, with the exception of Reepicheep and Aslan.

Fitting in with this argument (Hugs, this is an excellent point) comes the character/heroicness of Eustace.

The curious thing here is that Eustace, though improving, doesn't become a hero or anything like that in VoDT. Not even in SC, where both he and Jill are big complainers (sp?). Making Eustace hero-like would, if they have any plans of doing more Narnia movies, end up changing a lot of other characters and plots to fit the change.

Eustace is not a true "hero" on the same level as Peter, Edmund, and Caspian until The Last Battle. His journey is perhaps the longest of any Son of Adam in Narnia. In Voyage, he does an occasional heroic deed (as a dragon then helping to fight the sea monster), but not to the level of the Kings. He is never crowned a King, either (which also makes him different than Shasta/Cor as well), which is a definite change from the previous two movies. (Digory is the only other not crowned king, but his experiences/deeds in Magician are DECIDEDLY different than Eustace's experiences so I cannot draw any comparisons there.) In Silver Chair Eustace grows in leadership, but he is never the one in charge (both children defer to the "adult" Puddleglum).

Therefore, making him "hero-like" to the level of the Kings WOULD DEFINITELY change the future movies MUCH more than any changes made to Caspian or Peter in PC. Eustace is more like the "every-boy" vs. the "boy-hero" (again, until Last Battle when he shows how far he has come).

Knight of Narnia

07-13-2008, 05:23 PM

Well, kind of, but not really. In PC they made changes, but I don't think any of those changes were based on or because of changes they made in LWW. Besides the fact that as many fans have pointed out, the changes in LWW were more "insert invented character with invented lines for an invented purpose that fits in with the plot" (aka the fox) more than plot changing changes (Peter vs. Caspian, raid on castle, mixing up what happens where so nobody is exactly sure when anything is going to happen since it's not following the basic layout of events, bookwise). In Voyage, the changes made to the character of Caspian will DIRECTLY affect the movie, while changes to Peter, Susan, and to a degree Edmund and Lucy, will not (even though the 2 are in it, they were not "messed with"). The other characters are all new, with the exception of Reepicheep and Aslan.

Fitting in with this argument (Hugs, this is an excellent point) comes the character/heroicness of Eustace.

Eustace is not a true "hero" on the same level as Peter, Edmund, and Caspian until The Last Battle. His journey is perhaps the longest of any Son of Adam in Narnia. In Voyage, he does an occasional heroic deed (as a dragon then helping to fight the sea monster), but not to the level of the Kings. He is never crowned a King, either (which also makes him different than Shasta/Cor as well), which is a definite change from the previous two movies. (Digory is the only other not crowned king, but his experiences/deeds in Magician are DECIDEDLY different than Eustace's experiences so I cannot draw any comparisons there.) In Silver Chair Eustace grows in leadership, but he is never the one in charge (both children defer to the "adult" Puddleglum).

Therefore, making him "hero-like" to the level of the Kings WOULD DEFINITELY change the future movies MUCH more than any changes made to Caspian or Peter in PC. Eustace is more like the "every-boy" vs. the "boy-hero" (again, until Last Battle when he shows how far he has come).

I agree with both points Elentari. Changes made to LWW were more along the lines of "small additions" such as the scene with the fox or the scene at the waterfall. They could be taken out and the film would still make sense. However, if you take out the scenes where Peter is a jerk and winds up getting the Narnians into trouble, well you loose about 1/2 of the movie.

Eustace is definitely more of an "everyboy" than an actual hero (again until LB). He screws up, learns from it, and moves on. He winds up doing this several times before finally maturing enough to be a "hero" in LB.

inkspot

07-14-2008, 10:06 AM

I agree with these points re: Eustace and the changes from the LWW book.

What I don't agree with is that anything will have to be done to VDT to accomodate the changes from PC. The only thing which will really carry over (in some viewers' minds) is the Kiss, but most folks will see that for what it was, an impulsive gesture on Susan's part, and not think that any explanation is required in Caspian's role in VDT.

I think if Apted just follows VDT story, he will not have to make any changes based on PC film.

Copperfox

07-14-2008, 10:21 AM

One at least: given the way things went in the Caspian movie, it would be entirely UN-reasonable in the Dawn Treader movie for Caspian NOT to ask Lucy how Susan was faring back on Earth.

Elentari

07-14-2008, 02:05 PM

One at least: given the way things went in the Caspian movie, it would be entirely UN-reasonable in the Dawn Treader movie for Caspian NOT to ask Lucy how Susan was faring back on Earth.

True, CF...Especially if the script writers think that his NOT asking reflects badly on his character (as in moral, not script). Another option would be Lucy/Edmund just volunteering the information when they are "catching up" with Caspian ("how many years have gone by, what have you been up to, by the way Susan and Peter, bla bla bla"). Either way, it would be a change, though it MIGHT be viewed as a good one if it shows audiences (esp. Susan fans who can't understand why she's not coming back) the direction Susan is heading. ???

inkspot

07-14-2008, 03:23 PM

One at least: given the way things went in the Caspian movie, it would be entirely UN-reasonable in the Dawn Treader movie for Caspian NOT to ask Lucy how Susan was faring back on Earth.
Yah, but this would not necessarily be predicated on any changes made in PC -- this would have been necessary to the film just because Caspian had met and gotten to know the elder two Pevensies -- so even if nothing had transpired between Caspian and Susan, he would still have asked. There is no such conversation in the VDT book, but it still would have been needed in the movie. (Lewis tells us, the readers, about Susan, but he does not give us any dialog between the kids on the ship about it.)

~Valiant

07-21-2008, 06:34 PM

The biggest change they're going to have to deal with is Caspian/Susan vs. Caspian/Ramandu's daughter. I don't want them to mention it very much, but I do think they should pay some attention to it.
Caspian: How are your siblings doing?
Lucy: Peter's studying at Professor Kirke's-- when we first got to Narnia it was from the wardrobe in his house, he was one of the first people to enter narnia -- and Susan is with our mother and father in America. Ed and I were staying at our aunt and uncle's, with our cousin Eustace.
Caspian: I'm glad they're well.
Ed: You know they're never coming back, don't you?
Caspian: Yes. *smile* Don't worry, it's been three years.

BarbarianKing

07-21-2008, 09:33 PM

See? al this talk about Caspian/Susan was totally unecessary. I feel like you are talking about some unknown story I have never read. It definitely doesn't feel Narnia-like.

gogogoff

07-27-2008, 07:30 PM

but Peter's behavior and, for that matter,

Peter acted like any real person would act, he is not GOD he is not perfect, so stop acting like he should have been, I think what they did FOR peter was A GOOD THING FOR HIM

BarbarianKing

07-27-2008, 10:33 PM

Peter acted like any real person would act, he is not GOD he is not perfect, so stop acting like he should have been, I think what they did FOR peter was A GOOD THING FOR HIM

No it was not a good thing for him. Why does one have to act like a jerk to "act human." Not all human beings are jerks. If acting like a jerk is a good thing for some people then that's their business. Lewis held the High King to higher standards.

Certainly I don't want people to say of me "well, his just human" whenever I act stupid. Anyone who acts like that is not worthy of our admiration. And I do know at least one "real person" who is an honorable person at all times, not a jerk.

This probably belongs in the other thread but anyway, the things is I don't believe that the way he was portrayed in PC was good for him. No way.

Xenithar

07-28-2008, 09:50 AM

Whatever they decide to do with Dawn Treader, I would think they would have a hard time screwing the story up in the first place. It's a very simple story when you think about it, where they're hopping from island to island, and meanwhile there's all the character developement between Lucy, Edmund, Eustace, Caspian, Reepicheep, etc. (which in itself is not very complicated according to the book save for Eustace being a brat and eventually getting some sense put into him after he returns from being a dragon -.-)

And of course, there's all the extra stuff that floats over from PC, like the susaspian thing, but I agree with Lieke: that they'll probably ignore the Kiss. After all, it's been 3 years in Narnia time, and I don't think Caspian would really dwell upon that 2 second gesture for that long.

HugsForReepicheep

07-29-2008, 05:43 PM

See? al this talk about Caspian/Susan was totally unecessary. I feel like you are talking about some unknown story I have never read. It definitely doesn't feel Narnia-like.

I have to agree with you, BarbarianKing. That's one of the reasons I have already posted that I'd rather them just stick to the book and ignore the mistakes in PC in this new one. Maybe that's because I don't have imagination enough to come up with a solution as others did... Either way, I'm already picturing the jokes that might come on Caspian, and I *don't* like them. But as jokes will come and now no one can help it, jokes + book faithfull movie are a better scenary than jokes + book unfaithfull movie + some amends...

BarbarianKing

07-29-2008, 07:46 PM

I have to agree with you, BarbarianKing. That's one of the reasons I have already posted that I'd rather them just stick to the book and ignore the mistakes in PC in this new one. Maybe that's because I don't have imagination enough to come up with a solution as others did... Either way, I'm already picturing the jokes that might come on Caspian, and I *don't* like them. But as jokes will come and now no one can help it, jokes + book faithfull movie are a better scenary than jokes + book unfaithfull movie + some amends...

Thank you HugsForReepicheep. And I also happen to agree with you that it is best to stick to the book and forget the whole Caspian/Susan thing. Don't even mention it.

kf6tac

07-29-2008, 10:20 PM

So as you can probably guess from my post count, I’m new here. I was hesitant about putting my thoughts down on this subject because it seems people have very strong feelings on the matter, but then decided, “What the heck.” I also apologize for the post being very long - I was collecting my thoughts on the matter last night while waiting for my account to get approved, and I guess I have a lot of thoughts. I don't think I'm violating any terms of use in posting a long post, but someone please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll try to assemble a Cliff's Notes version.

Prince Caspian is a story about the dark night of the soul---about the characters finding faith and believing again after that faith and belief has been tested to its limits. This is as true for the Pevensie children, who have spent a year in a world torn by war only return to Narnia to find that Narnia is in pretty bad shape too, as it is for the Narnians themselves, who have seen their world invaded and dismantled by the Telmarines, with Aslan nowhere to be found. Some characters, like Lucy, have held strongly to their faith. Others, like the three older Pevensie children, have drifted to varying degrees.

In the book, Lewis reflected this by having the children seeing Aslan in gradual steps, with Lucy obviously being the first to see him. This is probably something they could have still done with the film, but there would have been some difficulties. It is probably more difficult to show the differing degrees of faith on-screen by this device, since it’s not often that scenes are shot from the point of view of each character’s eyes, nor, would I imagine, is it easy to do. And having each of the four siblings describing how much of Aslan they could see at any given time would probably get a bit annoying.

Instead, the filmmakers apparently took the approach of reflecting each character’s degree of faith by their conduct. You have Lucy, who still believes, seeing Aslan when the others do not. There’s Susan and Edmund, who still believe deep down, but have had their share of doubts. And of course, there’s Caspian, who plays the role of the newcomer to faith---he’s been educated in the history and the stories, but it’s through the events of the movie that he truly begins to believe.

On the distant end of the disbelief spectrum, you have a character like Nikabrik, who not only does not believe in Aslan, but who embraces his nemesis from the previous film. In the context of Christian allegory, Nikabrik is like someone who, after having their faith sorely tested, finds solace in vices---he is the Narnian equivalent of someone who loses faith and turns to drinking, gambling, crime, etc.

Then there’s Peter, who seems to be a real point of contention for people. My take on it is that the filmmakers portrayed Peter as one who has lost faith in Aslan, and as a result vests all his faith in himself. He represents the people in real life of whom it is often said, “They’ve forgotten where they come from and how they got where they are.” Having lost his faith in Aslan, all Peter remembers now is that he is the High King. He has, as Lucy aptly pointed out, forgotten how he became High King---with Aslan’s help, as it was Aslan who ultimately defeated the White Witch.

BarbarianKing mentioned that Lewis held the High King to higher standards, and I absolutely agree. Not only did Lewis hold Peter to higher standards, presumably Aslan held him to higher standards as well. And for as long as he believed in Aslan and remembered that it was by Aslan’s power that he became High King, Peter lived up to those standards during the Pevensies’ reign in Narnia. But after being torn from that world and returning a year later to find that world completely devastated, with no hint of Aslan trying to set things right, the humility that Peter’s faith once endowed upon him has now given way to pride. Peter clings to the title of High King because that’s all he has now, in his mind. He doesn’t think they can count on Aslan, who has been absent for 1300 years, so now they have to count on him. In real-world terms, he has replaced faith in God with faith in his own successes, while forgetting that it was through his faith in God that he succeeded in the first place.

Of course, it’s only human to falter when we’re held up to the highest standards, such as the standards that Lewis and Aslan imposed on Peter. If that were the end of the story, then, as BarbarianKing said, it would be terribly disappointing. But that’s only half of the equation---we don’t look up to people simply because they’re human. We look up to people who, when they fail---because of their imperfect humanity---to meet the standards that they’re held to, are capable of acknowledging their shortcomings and improving themselves. That’s the aspect of Peter’s story in the film that we’re supposed to look to---not the fact that he’s initially self-absorbed and a bit bratty, but the fact that when his pride led to disaster for the Narnians, he was able to admit that Lucy was right and place his trust and faith in Aslan once more.

I guess the point of this long rambling post is that what the filmmakers did was different in execution, but still aimed at preserving Lewis’ idea. I don’t think their portrayal of Peter has made him a less admirable character in the end, because ultimately the story in Prince Caspian isn’t just about having faith, as Lucy did all along; it’s also about finding your way back when you’ve strayed, as Peter, Edmund, and Susan had to do. As for how it will affect Dawn Treader… I’m not sure. In part because, as you may have gleamed from my long-winded writing, I tended to focus on the fact that Peter was able to come back to faith after stumbling, rather than his actual behavior when he was off the path. I don’t see a problem being critical of Eustace’s behavior, because people should rightfully be critical of Peter’s behavior as well---so long as they cut him some slack once he recognizes the error of his ways and once again becomes the High King everyone expects him to be. Perhaps some of the characters should have been a bit more critical of him during his bad Peter phase, thus making it more consistent for people to be critical of Eustace, but I think it was also hard to find characters from whom such response would be in-character---the centaurs, Reepicheep, and Edmund seemingly were all scripted to be loyal to the end, and thus would not be ideal to criticize Peter. Susan shot him a few disapproving looks and questioned his motives in the castle raid, and Nikabrik was clearly disdainful of him after the castle fiasco, but Nikabrik was also so far down the road to being bad that his criticism of Peter’s behavior lost most of its credibility by virtue of the character being a near-villain. The fact that Peter’s title of High King shielded him from much of the criticism from his former subjects would probably serve to temper any disparity one might find in criticizing Eustace but not Peter; people are naturally less inclined to criticize someone who holds a position of respect and honor, even when they’re acting poorly. I’m not saying it’s the right thing for people to do, but it explains any inconsistency in the treatment of Eustace vs. the treatment of Peter in a way that just about everyone understands.

As for Susan/Caspian (I know, long-winded)… not a big deal. It was just a kiss. Maybe it’d be tougher to sell to little kids, since when you’re a little kid, even holding hands is a big deal and kissing means you might as well be married, but for most people, I think it’d require at most a minute of dialogue, if it’s given any screen time at all.

HugsForReepicheep

07-30-2008, 11:44 AM

First of all, welcome kf6tac. :) That was a huge post, but very nice to read as well. I really liked your analysis, though I differ on a few points. But as I would go way off topic in answering them here, I might save my thoughs for myself or for the PC movie threads.
And you're welcome, BarbarianKing. Let's hope it will.

queenaravis707

07-30-2008, 12:32 PM

I actually don't know whether they would actually ignore the Susan/Caspian thing... according to the people who haven't read the books, they see nothing wrong with that and actually like what happened between Susan and Caspian. The public demand is leaning toward the romantic thing between Susan/Caspian. I went to a fanfiction website the other day, and more than half of them is about Susan staying, becoming Queen, and living happily ever after. Only 3 had something to do with Ramandu's daughter, and 2 out of the 3 had Caspian regretting marrying again and not really falling in love with Ramandu's daughter. To us, it's no big deal, because we know the books and we know it's been 3 years and we know the whole love-thing was just for the movies. But to people who don't know the books, they actually want a continuation of the romance, and not continuing it might affect the box office ratings. So the directors have a real problem at hand- public demand or sticking to the books. From what I've seen from these directors, I am really scared for what's going to happen in the VoDT.

BarbarianKing

07-30-2008, 01:32 PM

kf6tac: All your thought have already been posted in the different threads and all have been rebuted as not in line with the spirit of the book. I don't know what else to say to you other than to tell you that I disagree with your post.
While it's true that most of what you say is what happens in the movie. That is not what the book intended. To make Peter a stupid jerk for the sake of saying he lost his way was wrong.
And the kiss WAS a big deal because it completely ignored Caspian's true romance with Stargirl and introduce a highschoolish modern day ignorant relationship.

kf6tac

07-30-2008, 09:16 PM

And the kiss WAS a big deal because it completely ignored Caspian's true romance with Stargirl and introduce a highschoolish modern day ignorant relationship.

How can an action that takes place previous in time to a later romance be said to ignore that romance? Unless Caspian was precognitive and knew that he would meet his true love a few years down the line? If I meet my one true love in five years or so, will the fact that I've dated other people in the past make me guilty of ignoring a future "true romance" that I didn't know about at the time?

Maybe the filmmakers are aware that there will be a truer match for Caspian in his future, but how does the fact that they put in a previous (failed) attempt at romance with someone else amount to ignoring what happens in the future?

MrBob

07-30-2008, 09:58 PM

"If I meet my one true love in five years or so, will the fact that I've dated other people in the past make me guilty of ignoring a future "true romance" that I didn't know about at the time?"

kf6tac, I completely agree with this assessment. In another thread, I pointed out that if the kiss was still on his mind after three years of living as a king, something would be wrong with him.

Most people understand the feelings of losing someone due to a move. Yes, Caspian had a bit of a crush on Susan and yes, they kissed at the end, but this kiss was a parting kiss as both Susan and Caspian knew they would never see each other again.

The Susan/Caspian (I hate the cutesie one-word names for romantic pairings) relationship never got out of the crush stage. Caspian should easily get over Susan as he knows she will never come back and he has to attend to his kingdom.

MrBob

BarbarianKing

07-31-2008, 03:06 AM

How can an action that takes place previous in time to a later romance be said to ignore that romance? Unless Caspian was precognitive and knew that he would meet his true love a few years down the line? If I meet my one true love in five years or so, will the fact that I've dated other people in the past make me guilty of ignoring a future "true romance" that I didn't know about at the time?

Maybe the filmmakers are aware that there will be a truer match for Caspian in his future, but how does the fact that they put in a previous (failed) attempt at romance with someone else amount to ignoring what happens in the future?

See? Now you are talking about something similar to CS Lewis' Narnia. Are you one of the filmakers?

Pianoplayer888

08-16-2008, 12:19 AM

I agree with kf6tac on the way they brought Peter back from being a jerk, but agree with BarbarianKing on that they never should've made him a jerk.

As for the Susan/Caspian relationship, I think it could go a few ways.

1. Susan magically reappears, entirely contrary to what Aslan said in PC
2. The moviemakers turn Caspian in to someone so immature that he can't let go of Susan until he sees Stargirl, at which point all memory of Susan is completely wiped from his mind.
3. They very briefly mention Susan.
4. No mention of Susan, they follow their edited version of the book.

lieke

08-16-2008, 11:27 AM

probably number 3 or 4, number 1 is impossible (if not because the moviemakers realize it, then it's because Anna is definately not going to do Voyage), and number 2... PLEASEEEE no number 2!!:eek:

Pianoplayer888

06-29-2009, 11:52 AM

I wonder how differently it will all play out, now that Fox is in charge of the movie. Or if it will play out differently at all. I don't think it'll have an effect on the movie much, unless they show Caspian having little flashbacks to the kiss.

moonspinner

07-15-2009, 10:34 AM

OK, I never properly watched Prince Caspian because the movie was too creepy and… well, boring… but everyone seems to be missing a big change from the book to the movie that will impact a lot in Dawn Treader:

The Reason for the Voyage!!!!

Remember, King Miraz had sent off seven loyal friends of Caspian the Ninth to discover new lands beyond the Lone Islands, in order to get rid of any opposition when he crowned himself King.

So since the movie had Miraz declaring himself King after his child was born, after Caspian had escaped, and in fact, after the Narnians had laid siege on the castle, then I don’t know how they will reconcile that Coup d’etat with the one that required him to get rid of all of Caspian Ninth’s allies, including sending seven of them on a voyage.

So the question is: what reason will the movie trump up for the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and how will they work around the fact that Caspian, by a strange coincidence, keeps running into his father’s old friends?

*(By the way, instead of the ridiculous political posturing we get in the movie, won’t that has been a better story? Actually seeing the brothers of Beaversdam being shut up as madmen; lords texecuted on trumped up charges; and then finally the bogus quest which the lords probably jumped on because they knew they weren’t expected to return?)

Mozart the Meerkitten

07-15-2009, 11:32 AM

Catherine

07-15-2009, 12:16 PM

moonspinner

07-15-2009, 01:32 PM

The actual reason is stated several times in the book. They literally tick off each Lord on the list as they find him. And it's possible that the first dragon was one of the lords.

Copperfox

07-15-2009, 05:04 PM

I've got an idea! When they come to the island of nightmares, they discover that the movie "Prince NON-Caspian" was a nightmare from this island. This will give them a chance to REMAKE the movie and say that this is what "really" happened.

MrBob

07-15-2009, 10:21 PM

"So the question is: what reason will the movie trump up for the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and how will they work around the fact that Caspian, by a strange coincidence, keeps running into his father’s old friends?"

moonie, Miraz killed his own brother, Caspian IX. It would not be too hard to imagine that he did also kill or try to kill those who were loyal to Caspian IX. The three could be described as teh ones who got away from Miraz.

MrBob

moonspinner

07-16-2009, 02:14 AM

moonie, Miraz killed his own brother, Caspian IX. It would not be too hard to imagine that he did also kill or try to kill those who were loyal to Caspian IX. The three could be described as teh ones who got away from Miraz.

MrBob
You mean the seven. Well, yes we know - from the book - that Miraz tried to kill Caspian Ninth's friends because he made himself King long before the events of Prince Caspian. But that's not what happened in the movie. In the movie, he waited until Caspian had wrong-footed himself with the Telmarines by attacking the castle. So why would he be killing off any of Caspian Ninth's loyal supporters?

Animus Wyrmis

07-16-2009, 01:17 PM

Remember the empty seats in the council chamber in the PC film? I think that was supposed to be foreshadowing this.

Actually, I think you could make a pretty compelling case for the movie's version of things: Miraz kills off Caspian IX and winds up raising baby!Caspian. Obviously Miraz rules as regent, but as Caspian X gets older some lords start pointing out that maybe now is the time for Miraz to step down and let Caspian rule. Miraz slowly weeds these lords out (including the seven on the voyage) until the only lords left are the ones who won't bother trying to crown Caspian until Miraz is dead.

Miraz (in this version of events) doesn't care specifically about being king; he just wants the power. And that's fine until he has a son and Caspian runs off to raise an army--now he actually needs the title too. This actually makes sense when you consider that book!Caspian is in his early teens, so you would expect Miraz to still rule for him; in the movie, we're stuck wondering why Caspian never figured this out or the other lords never insisted he be crowned--he's in his twenties, that's plenty of time to think things through--so maybe Miraz has been killing off the lords who would take Caspian's side.

Animus Wyrmis

07-16-2009, 01:20 PM

In the movie, he waited until Caspian had wrong-footed himself with the Telmarines by attacking the castle. So why would he be killing off any of Caspian Ninth's loyal supporters?

Because they would insist on crowing Caspian king as soon as he reached his majority (whatever that is in Telmar--but probably sixteen/eighteen/twenty/twenty-one--whatever it is, Caspian's reached it). You can only rule as regent for your nephew when he's a kid.

Pianoplayer888

07-16-2009, 04:36 PM

The reason worked out perfectly(or very near it). Miraz was already acting as king, even though he wasn't actually king. He could very easily have persuaded the lords to go off into the east. If anything, they can say that King Caspian actually wanted to discover what was in the east, and chose them to do it, and he wasn't trying to murder them.

MrBob

07-17-2009, 10:21 PM

"You mean the seven. Well, yes we know - from the book - that Miraz tried to kill Caspian Ninth's friends because he made himself King long before the events of Prince Caspian. But that's not what happened in the movie. In the movie, he waited until Caspian had wrong-footed himself with the Telmarines by attacking the castle. So why would he be killing off any of Caspian Ninth's loyal supporters?"

moonie,

Why did I put three? :confused: I guess I wasn't thinking.:o

What is also evident from both the movie and book is that Miraz killed Caspian IX. Why wouldn't he also want to kill those who are loyal to his brother? They would have been potential assassins for revenge. By going and killing them or forcing them to flee, he was getting rid of his enemies.

Those lords they showed in the movie were not necessarily supposed to be thought as Caspian IX's friends. Why should they have?

MrBob

moonspinner

07-18-2009, 03:58 AM

It just makes Miraz's plans so... hard to understand. He kills King Caspian. He kills King Caspian's allies... Then he doesn't declare himself as King for years, bringing up Caspian's son to believe he will be King when he comes of age... Why? Why go through all that trouble of killing so many and stop at killing a boy?

Copperfox

07-18-2009, 05:23 AM

That is one of the FEW things in the Caspian film which DID come from the book. At the time of taking over the combined realm of Narnia and Telmar, Miraz and Prunaprismia had no children who could have inherited the throne from them. Under these conditions--and as long as young Caspian DIDN'T know what had happened to his father--Miraz had nothing to lose by letting Caspian inherit after him. But once Prunaprismia had a successful pregnancy, the reason for keeping Caspian alive was cancelled.

MrBob

07-18-2009, 09:20 PM

"Then he doesn't declare himself as King for years, bringing up Caspian's son to believe he will be King when he comes of age... Why? Why go through all that trouble of killing so many and stop at killing a boy?"

moonie,

Why Miraz wasn't king in the movie is absolutely confusing. As Copper mentioned, he was simply holding the place for Caspian, but seeing as how Caspian was old enough, well, the movie writers were not thinking about that.

MrBob

Animus Wyrmis

07-18-2009, 09:44 PM

What MrBob (and Copperfox) said. It looks like Miraz was acting as regent for Caspian--which means, essentially, that he ruled Narnia while Caspian was too young to do anything. In the book that makes sense, because Caspian is still like, twelve, but in the movie Miraz should have stepped down much earlier, or Caspian/Caspian's supporters should have firmly seized the throne. But as regent, there was no reason for Miraz to take the throne--he was in power until Caspian was "old enough" to rule. It was only the birth of Miraz's son that caused a problem--there was no way Miraz could have handed the crown to his son.

Of course, Miraz trying to kill Caspian THAT VERY NIGHT was a little silly. The smart thing would have been to wait a little and then have Caspian die in a hunting accident or something.

I do wonder why Caspian never tried to seize the throne and why he never seemed to think to himself "Why is it that my father was king, and I am thirty, and yet Uncle Miraz never lets me do anything?" OTOH, it's not like movie!Caspian was much good at politics or anything at any point in the movie, so maybe that's in character.

~Lava~

07-19-2009, 12:26 AM

I think the problem with it is that the guy (yes, I know his name is Ben Barnes) who played the movie!Caspian just looked too old for what the movie!Caspian was intended to be aged at. I think they intended him to look about seventeen or possibly younger (note: they had Ben shave a bazillion times during the shooting to make him still look baby-faced).

I think they intended him to still look like he was in his mid/late-teens but it just did not work out that way. Thus, Miraz would still be lord regent until Caspian came of age. That was their biggest mistake, getting a twenty-six year-old to play a sixteen-seventeen year old (I am pretty convinced that is how they intended to age him based on how old Peter looked in LWW and the fact that Peter was still in a school uniform.)

Liz

07-19-2009, 05:47 AM

I don't think the changes in PC will have any effect on VotDT at all.

Susan and Caspian shared a farewell kiss, and she's not coming back. End of story.
Peter is not in VotDT, either. And his attitude changed for the better towards the end of PC, so it wouldn't have been a problem anyway.
Caspian is three years older in VotDT than in PC. So if Ben Barnes shaves a lot again, that should be ok. :D I don't hope they'll give Caspian a beard, he should still look quite young.

Sail on, Dawn Treader! Fingers crossed for a good film. :)

moonspinner

07-19-2009, 11:30 AM

OK that makes more sense! Especially if Caspian was supposed to be younger than he actually appeared. The book has him as Peter's age but I really had no idea how old Ben Barnes was supposed to be. I guess he wasn't supposed to be that much older than the children otherwise Susan/Caspian would have been all kinds of creepy.

Of course, it still begs the question of what Miraz would have done if he never had a son and Caspian came of age and demanded to be crowned King. In the book, that's a moot point because Miraz is King already. But in the film, Miraz would have been faced with either stepping down (highly unlikely, you don't go all Macbeth to hand over the thrown to your nephew) or he would have killed Caspian and then gone hunting for his closest relation to raise as his heir and keep the ambitious Lords at bay (and then you wonder why he didn't do this from the beginning). :confused:

BarbarianKing

07-19-2009, 07:41 PM

They already ruined the story by having the Suspian thing. Might as well change it more by using some ideas from our very own "Silly Changes" thread in this section!!

Copperfox

07-20-2009, 01:09 AM

The discordant note of the Susan-Caspian attraction was nothing compared to the insults they gratuitously heaped on Peter. And the argument that Peter would "HAVE TO" lose all his maturity of character after the return to Earth at the end of "Wardrobe" is gross nonsense which can't hold water for three seconds....because they DIDN'T show any such degradation of EDMUND. Edmund was depicted as handling himself very well, ON EARTH as well as in Narnia....because it wasn't Edmund they were trying to tear down.

As for "Dawn Treader," I will NOT go to see it at all, unless and until someone who has seen it reports to me that they have not ruined the vitally important scene at voyage's end where Aslan indicates His real identity.

moonspinner

07-20-2009, 05:20 AM

The discordant note of the Susan-Caspian attraction was nothing compared to the insults they gratuitously heaped on Peter.

Agreed!

And the argument that Peter would "HAVE TO" lose all his maturity of character after the return to Earth at the end of "Wardrobe" is gross nonsense which can't hold water for three seconds....because they DIDN'T show any such degradation of EDMUND. Edmund was depicted as handling himself very well, ON EARTH as well as in Narnia....because it wasn't Edmund they were trying to tear down.

Edmund is a Gary Stu in the films and this is a shock for me to say because I adore the character in the books. But the person I saw on the screen was not the same person at all. And I’ve said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that the filmmakers did Susan’s character a big disservice by reducing her role to a love-interest (and not even a very good one) because this is literally the last time we will ever see her in Narnia. I can’t help feeling that it’s pure sexism to give Peter a manufactured controversial personality and take Susan’s own angst from her; because it’s rooted on the chauvinistic idea that women don’t have issues outside romance and boys; while men have issues about faith and responsibility and power.

As for "Dawn Treader," I will NOT go to see it at all, unless and until someone who has seen it reports to me that they have not ruined the vitally important scene at voyage's end where Aslan indicates His real identity.

Oh goodness! However will they handle that? They’ve been doing their best to play down the Christian aspects of the books.

inkspot

07-20-2009, 02:21 PM

moonspinner, I agree with you that the re-casting of Susan's character in PC did not do her any favors. It was just less egregious than what happened to Peter. I am glad you are honest enough to say you disliked Edmund because he retained his loyalty to Aslan and his royal bearing -- a lot of people who favor the terrible things done to Peter's character in the film insist that he had to be that way to be interesting, yet at the same time, they do not complain about Edmund's remaining wise and mature -- in fact, most people I've noticed seemed to really love Ed's movie character and Skandar's performance ... and yet insist that had Peter remained noble, it would have been unrealistic. Weird.

Captain Holly

07-20-2009, 03:52 PM

The movie will be nothing like the book.

BarbarianKing

07-21-2009, 12:57 AM

The movie will be nothing like the book.
Maybe not, but if they use ideas from the Silly Ideas thread, it will be so much awesome fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

Pianoplayer888

07-21-2009, 01:11 PM

Maybe not, but if they use ideas from the Silly Ideas thread, it will be so much awesome fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

I second that!:D

It'd be...I'm not even sure, there's so many ideas in the thread, from oompa loompas to muppets and spaceships to battleships, it's too hard to tell.

Aravis Kenobi

07-21-2009, 03:04 PM

Frankly I think we're puttin the cart before the horse on this subject, since we don't know anything of what will be in Dawn Treader. Michael Apted doesn't have to answer to anything or for anything that Adamson did in PC. This is a new crew, with new screenwriters and a new director, and to an extent, a new cast, so Apted should only focus on HIS job as the director, and on what the fans would like to see in Dawn Treader. I do see a scene possibly having Susan and PEter in it, telling why they weren't with Edmund and Lucy. I don't see a big need for the film to explain the mistakes (in some people's eyes) of the previous movie. I don't think we should worry about it. It's 18 months or so before the film will even be released.

Copperfox

07-21-2009, 05:44 PM

Mistakes in SOME people's eyes? Try, in Mr. Lewis' eyes! Mr. Lewis intended Peter to be an essentially noble character, with his shortcomings not DEFINING his whole being; but Adamson intentionally reversed that in "Prince NON-Caspian," making Peter such a loser that his doing anything RIGHT was the exception!

Aravis Kenobi

07-21-2009, 06:02 PM

I just think that people need to get over themselves b ecause it's done with. People are turning this into a big deal. Gee whiz, I don't hear this kind of trash talk for Twilight OR Harry Potter, both of which I think are more popular than either Lord of the Rings or Narnia.

The reason I left the forum? See post above me.

MrBob

07-21-2009, 09:57 PM

Animus Wyrmis

07-21-2009, 10:38 PM

I asked this in the Harry Potter topic (or at least a cariant of this question), are the movies of book series intended to be, like the books, looked at as a continual story or are they semi-independent projects that are not dependent on the past movies?

I think they're meant to be a continual story--both HP and Narnia have been marketed as sequels, with the same actors, music, title fonts, all that. The movies (and the trailers, come to think of it) rely on the audience having already seen the previous movie(s)--they don't bother to explain most of it.

So I think you have to look at them as continual stories. I think I've seen books get turned into movies that are more independent, but of course I can't think of what they are now.

In that case, I think they'll have to stick to the 'verse changes made in the LWW and PC movies, although since most of those changes involved characters who won't be around (Peter, Susan) or who have had time to grow up (Caspian), they could probably handwave them and do a more faithful adaptation, if they wanted to.

BarbarianKing

07-22-2009, 01:51 AM

The changes in PC were NOT mistakes. They wanted to do it like that. It was on purpose that they ruined the character of Peter. And why should anyone get over it? The portrayed a Peter that doesn't exist. People who haven't read the books now think Peter was exactly that jerk.

inkspot

07-22-2009, 10:21 AM

~Lava~

07-22-2009, 11:02 PM

I never said that those were mistakes, changes yes, but I knew they were intentional. I was talking about mistakes, like messed up make-up or the fact that most everyone who had a facial wound from the battle had it on their left hand side near the eyebrow. The fact that Caspian looked too old to be in his teens was a mistake, I doubt that they intended it.

AsbelMctalisker

07-23-2009, 02:23 AM

The fact that Caspian looked too old to be in his teens was a mistake, I doubt that they intended it.

I dont know if thats a problem unique to PC

Hollywood ALWAYS seems to cast teens older than they are supposed to be, just about any teenager seen on screen will be played by somebody who`s actually in their 20`s, but its rarely questioned.

moonspinner

07-23-2009, 05:10 AM

Since they took the time to cast age appropriate children for the Pevensies, I doubt it was a mistake that they cast someone who was almost in his thirties as Prince Caspian. In the film, we have no idea how old Caspian is supposed to be and we keep stumbling against the block that an apparently grown man needs a bunch of kids and animals to fight in his power-struggle with his uncle.

No one is complaining - at least not much - about the position of facial wounds, etc. What every one has been consistently complaining about is Peter's characterization first, then the Susan/Caspian romance second, and none of these were mistakes.

Liz

07-23-2009, 05:25 AM

Everyone has a right to an opinion, and a forum dedicated to Narnia and CS Lewis is the proper place to express it. A lot of people were unhappy with PC movie, and this is where they come to talk about it.

A lot of people loved PC movie, and this is where they come to talk about it.

It's cool.

Yes, exactly! People have different opinions, very different. Also on this Forum, and that's fine. :)

I don't think PC was ruined, at all. If it had been closer to the book, I would have been happier for it, yes. But I liked it.

If we should talk about mistakes, I think leaving the "Picking Marshalls" scene out was a mistake. Here Peter and Caspian connect, and it shows that Caspian wants to fight his uncle himself. But Caspian respects Peter as High King, and therefore lets Peter do the single combat! Would have been great, if we had seen this in the film!

inkspot

07-23-2009, 01:27 PM

In the film, we have no idea how old Caspian is supposed to be and we keep stumbling against the block that an apparently grown man needs a bunch of kids and animals to fight in his power-struggle with his uncle.

No one is complaining - at least not much - about the position of facial wounds, etc. What every one has been consistently complaining about is Peter's characterization first, then the Susan/Caspian romance second, and none of these were mistakes.
Yes, just so. Thankfully in VDT, Caspian is supposed to be older, so that will work, and Susan doesn't come back, so that's a moot question, and Peter doesn't come back, so we don't have to worry about his going off again ...

They sort of have a clean slate, as far as I can see, to make a really good film independent of the last one! (Which for the record, I enjoyed very much as an adventure film! I just didn't think it had that much to do with Narnia.)

moonspinner

07-24-2009, 09:56 AM

Yes, just so. Thankfully in VDT, Caspian is supposed to be older, so that will work, and Susan doesn't come back, so that's a moot question, and Peter doesn't come back, so we don't have to worry about his going off again ...

They sort of have a clean slate, as far as I can see, to make a really good film independent of the last one! (Which for the record, I enjoyed very much as an adventure film! I just didn't think it had that much to do with Narnia.)

I, also, am extremely happy that VDT is getting a tabula rasa. :)

Copperfox

07-24-2009, 10:59 AM

I still am not going to see it until someone else comes back to report that the filmed ending does NOT have Aslan say to Edmund and Lucy, "In your world I am known as BUDDHA..."

inkspot

07-24-2009, 11:28 AM

I still am not going to see it until someone else comes back to report that the filmed ending does NOT have Aslan say to Edmund and Lucy, "In your world I am known as BUDDHA..."
LOL! I will post a review right away after I see it so you're not hanging there in suspense! Actually, I bet insiders will see a preview before we see it, like ITW did with PC, and we can know based on their general reaction whether or not that's going to happen. (She couldn't tell what she saw, but she could tell how she felt about the film.)

If they wimp out and turn that into some kind of universalist theme, I'll be sad. It would be better if they cut the scene altogether although that would break my heart.

Into the Wardrobe

07-26-2009, 07:20 PM

Agreed that people can have their own opinions Inky. Mine hasn't changed and I'll reiterate it till the end of time. That's not a bad thing. The franchise needs to know. Many others have dropped off of the forums for the films in disgust because they're the die hard Lewis fans also and can't stomach the changes so it goes both ways. It's hardly unheard of that they're still talking about their disgust issues. It will continue as long as Lewis fans can speak. We can have different opinions. Some people like the changes. That's their deal. They can talk about it on here too. If there's a place to talk about it all, it's here on a forum. It's what the place exists for.

They won't have a clean slate with me at all. I'm very wary. I've talked with Mark and he's calmed some of my fears, but in reading between the lines, I'm still wary. VDT is my favorite one and I want to see it done right. Last Battle is a close second and I want to see that one done right as well. Granted, I'm a huge fan of all of Lewis' works and I want to see justice done to them.

I very much believe that Prince Caspian was ruined. The characterization of Peter was horrid to say the least and the Susan/Caspian romance was a huge mistake that Walden will pay for from now till the end of time. The change in when Aslan showed up and how much he did was a mistake as well. The BBC only did half of PC, but they did much better at adapting it. The spirit of the characters were held to in the BBC where as in the Walden many of them were unrecognizable in character. I know that there's a phenominal animosity toward the Walden PC on many seminary campuses...not that I'm overwhelmingly shocked. The only thing that did shock me was the depth of that animosity. It surpassed my displeasure 150 fold at my seminary.

I want VDT to be good. I want them to do as well as LWW or better in the quality of the film. PC pulled the rug called "Trust" out from under me in the Narnia films. I'll wait with bated breath to see what VDT looks like. If they don't do it justice, I think the Lewis fans will do their best to make sure it's the last Narnia movie made until it can be done right. I think highly of the cast and crew and hope they can rise to the occasion. I think they can. Time will tell.

Copperfox

07-27-2009, 08:01 AM

inkspot

07-27-2009, 02:08 PM

Good point there, Joseph. I hadn't thought about it.

ITW, as far as a "clean slate," I meant that VDT doesn't have to be built on anything objectionable from the PC film since neither Susan nor Peter make an appearance, and Caspian himself is supposed to have aged more than Ed and Lucy.

Aravis Kenobi

07-31-2009, 10:24 AM

For the benefit of those who are still in denial concerning the fact--not opinion, FACT--that Walden's "Prince NON-Caspian" went utterly against the spirit of Mr. Lewis' work:

"Dawn Treader" introduces the character of Cousin Eustace. When first seen, Eustace is a spoiled brat with absolutely NO good qualities at all. Yet Aslan redeems him, and makes a good boy out of him. So Eustace returns to Earth with a new heart and a new personality. When we next see Eustace, at the beginning of "Silver Chair," he has been back on Earth for months....but HAS NOT lost the virtues he acquired in the Narnian world.

Walden Media, however, wants us to believe that Peter Pevensie, who started out in "Wardrobe" already possessing a good foundation of moral integrity, could not do even AS GOOD a job of hanging on to his Narnian virtues as Eustace did.

I might remind everyone YET AGAIN, that PC wasn't written by Disney or Walden Media. It was written by the screenwriters, and approved by Adamson and Gresham. If you're going to blame somebody for mistakes, blame the people who actually are responsible, not the people who are responsible for marketing and publicity. :mad:

Otherwise, I don't think we should worry until closer to release date. But nobody will listen because the fans are too bull-headed to accept changes outside of the book.

Truman

07-31-2009, 01:08 PM

I might remind everyone YET AGAIN, that PC wasn't written by Disney or Walden Media. It was written by the screenwriters, and approved by Adamson and Gresham. If you're going to blame somebody for mistakes, blame the people who actually are responsible, not the people who are responsible for marketing and publicity. :mad:

Otherwise, I don't think we should worry until closer to release date. But nobody will listen because the fans are too bull-headed to accept changes outside of the book.
*applauds*

DestinyLies

07-31-2009, 01:43 PM

Aravis Kenobi

07-31-2009, 01:50 PM

Wow, two people posting in a row who both agree with me...there's a first. :rolleyes:

inkspot

07-31-2009, 02:30 PM

Wow, two people posting in a row who both agree with me...there's a first. :rolleyes:
LOL! Aravis, I agree with you quite often. And I certainly agree that we must blame the scriptwriters, Adamson and even Gresham for the poor showing of Lewis' work in PC film.
:)

Copperfox

07-31-2009, 06:52 PM

No, Aravis Kenobi, I do not just blindly reject all changes. I reject changes which do violence to the basic spirit of the story. One of Mr. Lewis' themes was that it was possible for people, though never infallible in this life, to become substantially better than they were. So it was a BAD change to claim, in the PC movie, that Peter could not even remain AS good as he had been at the start of the LWW movie.

Liz

07-31-2009, 07:25 PM

Wow, two people posting in a row who both agree with me...there's a first. :rolleyes:

:D I actually agree as well!
And personally I don't think PC was bad.

I look forward to the new film, and I'm going to see it no matter what!! ;)
Doesn't matter how many changes they make. I'll make my judgement, when I've seen the FINAL result.

Aravis Kenobi

07-31-2009, 07:55 PM

I look forward to the new film, and I'm going to see it no matter what!! ;)
Doesn't matter how many changes they make. I'll make my judgement, when I've seen the FINAL result.

What I highlighted in bold is what I want from anyone and everyone going to see Dawn Treader. It's what SHOULD come from people who are expecting great things.

And Copperfox, I don't blindly accept change either, but I think y'alls griping has gone too far and too long. Get over the fact that PC wasn't made to your liking. Save your complaining for Dawn Treader.

caspian the 10th

07-31-2009, 08:28 PM

inkspot

07-31-2009, 08:29 PM

Nah, everyone can gripe as much as they want, and everyone can be as pleased as they want. That's the whole thing on a Narnia Forum, it's for complaining or complimenting as much as you like.

caspian the 10th

07-31-2009, 08:31 PM

Wow, two people posting in a row who both agree with me...there's a first. :rolleyes:

my bad....i dont actualy have a side in this...i grew up with the lewis books and loved tem......the script writers are to blame for any change to the spirit of the story and anything differant from the book....but on a whole the movie as a movie was OK...

caspian the 10th

07-31-2009, 08:35 PM

im actualy quite excited about this new movie i am....it will be a bit differant from the other 2 because fox have taken over from disney...and they are filming in my town......(well sort of...only 40 mins away) goldcoast and brisbane

MrBob

07-31-2009, 10:08 PM

"I might remind everyone YET AGAIN, that PC wasn't written by Disney or Walden Media. It was written by the screenwriters, and approved by Adamson and Gresham. If you're going to blame somebody for mistakes, blame the people who actually are responsible, not the people who are responsible for marketing and publicity."

Everyone shares the blame. The writers get the most blame. The director and Gresham next for accepting the script. But Walden isn't blameless. They paid for the movie and could have demanded the script be more to their liking or they would fire the people and find new people who went with their vision.

MrBob

Truman

07-31-2009, 11:33 PM

One of Mr. Lewis' themes was that it was possible for people, though never infallible in this life, to become substantially better than they were. So it was a BAD change to claim, in the PC movie, that Peter could not even remain AS good as he had been at the start of the LWW movie.
When did Lewis ever say that about his books?

See Joe, you've gotta actually prove your words before you claim them as fact. You haven't done that, and that's what boils my blood about the whole thing. I respect Inkspot's opinion of the movie. I respect MrBob's, ItW's, as well as many others. But you, I don't, because you assume and assert your points as if you were there with the writers, with the producers, with the directors, discussing and exchanging information about the second Narnia installment, "Prince Caspian."

What I do not respect are your claims of what Adamson and co. were thinking as they made decisions, your supposed "knowledge" of who and where the people were involved in the set up surrounding the script, and how certain aspects of the film were highlighted: i.e. Caspian playing "I'm too sexy for my chainmail." I'm sorry, was that supposed to be funny or sarcastic? I can't tell. If funny, tell it to your friends. If sarcastic, call up Ben Barnes and speak it to his ear; I dare you.

So Joe, please revert to what you do know as a viewer and a researcher (if you've done any). You weren't there. As far as Lewis' standing point of making "characters improve, becoming better people," take a look at the books! Lewis only implied such when he wrote specifically about someone changing, which applies only to Edmund, Eustace, and maybe even a little to Tirian. But you have to admit the Peter Lewis wrote was flat-out undynamic as a character. No soul, no spirit, no emotion; nothing. His virtues Lewis gave him never changed from LWW all the way to PC. That's one of the problems Lewis had with character development: only if the character is completely disagreeable do you make him better. If he's just as you enjoy you leave him alone. That's what Lewis did, and I, as a reader of many novels have come to resent that particular case. You want to make a character real, make him flawed. Flawed, not meaning "sinful" or "stupid," but flawed meaning "unsure," "charismatic," or "habitual." Give him quirks. What makes him tick? He had three books to write him in and failed each time to give any dynamism to his persona. And as a reader, I can tell you that that's what I saw, especially in Prince Caspian. Peter, in the book, has absolutely no change in him at all from LWW.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation of Peter being angry for 1 minute of the 2 1/2 hour-long film (which I'd consider to be incredulously light), that's your decision. But I beg you, refrain from asserting that you know exactly what Lewis meant in every Narnia book he wrote, as well as what the screenwriters, producers, and director thought, because you sir do not.

That's all.

BarbarianKing

08-01-2009, 01:26 AM

DestinyLies

08-01-2009, 02:06 AM

Oh dear...my TDL big brothers are fighting.................

Truman

08-01-2009, 02:26 AM

If people don't like to hear what we have to say about the disastrous way the moviemakers handled the character of Peter, they should stop reading. Why should I stop saying what I think? Just because you don't want to hear it? That is not a good reason.
I didn't say you should stop (although I'd like it if you would :rolleyes:). Inky's right about that. By all means! Continue! ;)

Aravis Kenobi

08-01-2009, 01:06 PM

BarbarianKing

08-01-2009, 04:58 PM

I'm not saying people should stop permanently, but it's gone a bit too far...besides, do you realize how much money it would have cost and how much time for Walden to scrap Adamson's hard work? No self-respecting studio would do something like that, unless you can provide examples. So I don't see the validity of that statement.
What are you talking about? who said anything about scrapping anything? If it's gone too far for you, you should stop reading. I do. I don't go to certain threads when I've had enough, but I certainly don't tell people in those threads to stop.

Aravis Kenobi

08-01-2009, 05:59 PM

MrBob said that Walden should have made them change the script to their liking, so let me explain why I have an issue with that:

First off, WAlden Media probably doesn't care how close the scripts are or aren't to the books; if they're good, quality films, able to be enjoyed by families, then it probably gets a go-ahead. Just because they're a Christian company does NOT mean they will make the mandates on the script. They leave that judgment to the writers, production and direction teams. I don't see how WAlden is in fact to blame for anything, if only wanting to release a good film (not good in the fans' eyes, but it's a good movie nonetheless, hence why I think everyone needs to stop looking at it through fan eyes).

Second, I don't believe Walden (or Disney for that matter) holds the rights to the Lewis estate. I.e. Adamson had to get a license in order to use Narnia, which he most likely got from Gresham. Gresham is part of the production team, therefore, he sees the script as it's being developed and as it's being filmed; if he didn't like it, I know for a fact he would have told Adamson his feelings, and Adamson may or may not have accomodated Gresham. None of us were there, so I don't think it's our place to judge either side.

And it's hard to stop reading when it is all over the forum, in pretty much all threads in this section. When LWW came out, I posted quite a bit in the films sections, but no more. I felt like there were no lovers of PC, only haters. Now, I know I've said that I don't mind the changes to PC and I don't, because PC the book was very, very, very boring to me. I was kinda dreading seein it on screen thinking that they would keep it the same, and if they had, PC would've bombed, and Dawn Treader most likely would not be in pre-production/filming. Most of the people i talked to prior to PC's release were planning on boycotting the film. Why? Rumors, suspicions...whatever you want to call it about the plot. It's ridiculous! It's like people telling me not to go see Star Trek because it diverted too much from the original storyline. So what?! I made a determination about both films not to judge until I had walked out of the theater. Every person who goes to see a book adaption in theaters needs to have that attitude. I don't hear anybody complainin about Harry Potter or Twilight. ANYBODY. It's sickening. In terms of Narnia and LotR, all films in question were good movies, whether they were close enough to the books or not. I don't hear anybody besides those who aren't "die-hard" fans give praise or credit to the movie. All I hear are complaints.

But, per your suggestion, I shall leave this thread and put everyone who's posted negatively on my ignore list. I suppose that would satisfy everybody in question. Or I could leave the forum again, which I've been considering a lot lately, however I do have people who count on me (see siggy) and I will not leave until I've let them read my sad little story. (by the way, can't you tell that this paragraph is drippin with sarcasm? :rolleyes:)

Into the Wardrobe

08-01-2009, 09:22 PM

Steph, I don't know what to think. You've been known to have a good head on your shoulders. There's no reason to leave just because ther are people who didn't like the PC film. And if there's a place to discuss it, this is surely it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the film and the fact that people won't think your way is not the reason you want to leave...I have a feeling it's a whole lot more than that. If you want to talk, you know where to find me. You know I care about you tons and bunches and always have.

Having said that, PC will be reiterated till the end of time and that's not a bad thing. You can post that you liked it till the end of time and that's not a bad thing. This is where we do that...and it's ok. There's no need for people to get over anything. For those who loved Lewis and all of his works for a good 30 years, it's hard to just downshift that fast. HP and Twilight haven't been around for half a century yet. You can't expect older people to just go with the changes that easily. It's not going to happen. We're just not wired that way. Even if people can handle the changes, you can bet they, at the very least did a few double takes at it all. Give the adults some credit already. Maybe there's some hidden wisdom in it all. The ability to carefully examine something and critique it....and then dig in the heels when change and acceptance are demanded can be good. In the Old Testament, if God's people had taken advantage of that skill more often things may have been different. Instead they ended up doing what the people around them wanted and ended up in exile. Sure, the PC films are different and not as important but there were treasures lost from book to film...great treasures. Pardon us while we mourn the loss. If this is the way we need to do it, then so be it. It will take a lot of time.

We're all aware of how Walden makes the films and hires the writers to do it. They can also fire them. We're aware of the work that Adamson and everyone else put into PC. We're aware that it was expensive and time consuming. One could not put together a better movie making team in my mind (apart from the screenwriters). I'm glad there will be new ones for VDT. I want to see what they'll come up with. But, by and by, I want to see the treasure that I've loved for over 30 years on screen. No more, no less. That's not a felony and there's no reason to leave or be rude because of it. I care about you.

As for Mr. Gresham, I have a unique point of view. I've discussed everything personally with him and I'm aware of how things work a lot better now. I can't discuss anything said which makes it hard to post because I can't explain a lot. I won't be criticizing him. I know where the fault lies and I know more of what he can and can't do. Most people don't get what his role is or how much control he does or doesn't have. Sadly, I'm not at liberty to explain it here. Sufficed to say, I don't blame him. I have a bit of a different outlook at times, but Doug is a gentleman and a friend. I think very highly of him. He's a dear heart and I'm thankful for the discussions. He challenges me often and makes me really think in ways that I hadn't before wether we're discussing Narnia or ministry or life...or all of the above at the same time.

What PC accomplished was a great split in the fan base that may wreck all for the franchise. Time will tell on that one. I think that Walden learned their lesson and I hope Fox will pick up on the lessons learned from the last 2 films. Maybe VDT will bring the fans back together. If it can do that, it will be worth every cent spent on it. But, that will all depend on the script. I wish I could read it now and tell them the outcome before the cash would be spent...but I can't.

Mrs Gil-Galad Took

08-01-2009, 09:32 PM

But, per your suggestion, I shall leave this thread and put everyone who's posted negatively on my ignore list. I suppose that would satisfy everybody in question. Or I could leave the forum again, which I've been considering a lot lately, however I do have people who count on me (see siggy) and I will not leave until I've let them read my sad little story. (by the way, can't you tell that this paragraph is drippin with sarcasm? :rolleyes:)

If you like PC or not is your own choice. I have not seen that many people complaining a lot. Actually there were more members liking Pc than haters. Or it must have been the Hollywood - hunks style? You post things which might offend other members but everytime someone is saying something you don't like you are jumping up and act almost in a rage. Then you threaten to leave the forum again. I think it's pretty harsh to put everybody who disagrees with you on an ignore list. We all disagree from time to time. If I have to add everybody who has disagreed with me -even once- on my ignore list I would never read anybody's comments anymore. We all disagree from time to time but to make it sound like a war is a bit over the top

MrBob

08-01-2009, 10:27 PM

"Now, whether you agree or disagree with the interpretation of Peter being angry for 1 minute of the 2 1/2 hour-long film (which I'd consider to be incredulously light), that's your decision."

Truman, the anger is not just for one minute. Peter is imbued with unnecessary anger at the beginning. It is like complaining about the Susan/Caspian romance. It wasn't just the kiss that defined the romance, but all of the flirting. The arguments were there, but it was the underlying issues that Peter had that I am upset about with Peter.

Heck, the arguments about the raid, both planning and the aftermath were perfectly in place. The times when there should not have been anger is what we have been debating about. Where, what, and the extent he should be angry is what we are ultimately debating. Copper and others, including me, feel the level of anger before Peter got to Narnia was out of proportion and that is not a good beginning.

"do you realize how much money it would have cost and how much time for Walden to scrap Adamson's hard work?"

Aravis,

Fox did it with VotDT from what I heard. They had a somewhat complete script, which was then somewhat rewritten for the beneift of Fox. The fact is the scripts belong to Walden, not the screenwriters or director. They are paying people to write the script and what comes out is ultimately what they are paying for. The production company in a sense buys the script from the screenwriters. They do have creative control over the movies they produce.

The success or failure of a movie falls on all aspects, including the production comapny.

"I don't believe Walden (or Disney for that matter) holds the rights to the Lewis estate."

No, Aravis, but Walden has bought the exclusive rights to turn the books into movies. They bought that from the Lewis Estate for a certain period of time. BBC did the same thing when they made their miniseries.

By the way, I threw Greham's name in there because he is part of the production team. How much creative control he has is unknown to me, but he is still part of the team that brought the books to the big screen.

"But, per your suggestion, I shall leave this thread and put everyone who's posted negatively on my ignore list."

I also always say that one should ignore threads that one does not find palatable. I have done that on a number of forums, but I have yet to put anyone on my ignore list. There is no need. Just ignore them the old fashioned way. Plus, putting someone on your ignore list in one thread means they are there in all threads and you never know when and how you may agree with them.

MrBob

BarbarianKing

08-02-2009, 04:16 AM

AsbelMctalisker

08-02-2009, 06:29 AM

I do think that we really need to move on somewhat from these debates about what went wrong with PC and start focusing more on VOTDT. This thread IS supposed to be about the effects the PC changes should have on VOTDT.
The short answer being `not much`.

While we dont know much about it yet we have had a couple of hints about a few changes in the VOTDT screenplay from the book.

1) From that old `leaked` early draft and from some hints gained from a recent casting call it looks like the opening England sequence is going to have a wartime setting rather than being set in the post war period.
Thats not a big problem from my point of view unless they intend to have Susan appear in a cameo role but perhaps some of you feel differently.

2) From that draft again plus some old pre-production paintings done before PC was released it looks like they have been considering using The Green Witch from SC as a major villian in the film. That strikes me as a BAD idea and doing that will introduce major changes to the storyline.

Mrs Gil-Galad Took

08-02-2009, 09:41 AM

While I don't wish anyone to leave the forum, I certainly won't feel guilty if a person decides to leave. I never post anything with malice in my heart, but I will be honest. And sometimes, I will post recommendations that have worked for me.

There was nothing wrong with your post! You never said she should leave. You only meant if it makes her angry to read all this she shouldn't read it. People are allowed to give their opinions whether someone likes it or not. That's what makes everybody unique.

Oww and knowing Aravis she will stay ;) This forum is way too addictive :D

Liz

08-02-2009, 02:28 PM

What I highlighted in bold is what I want from anyone and everyone going to see Dawn Treader. It's what SHOULD come from people who are expecting great things.

I think y'alls griping has gone too far and too long. Get over the fact that PC wasn't made to your liking. Save your complaining for Dawn Treader.

Yes, I'm expecting great things. :) I hope I'll love the VotDT film!! Perhaps I won't, time will show. But I'll see it with an open mind. And if I don't like it, I'll see it again. (Liked PC better the second time I saw it). THEN I'll make my judgement!

This thread is actually about the changes in PC, and if they'll have any effect on the new film. I don't think so. Can't see which changes should have any effect, since neither Peter nor Susan are coming back to Narnia.

Sail on, Dawn Treader!! :D

Sopespian

08-02-2009, 02:58 PM

This thread has gotten venomous! Can't we all start using a more polite tone?

Mrs Gil-Galad Took

08-02-2009, 04:14 PM

This thread has gotten venomous! Can't we all start using a more polite tone?

No this thread hasn't gotten venomous. People are allowed to give their own opinion whether other people like it or not. Knowing most members on here this thread is soon back to normal ;)

BarbarianKing

08-02-2009, 04:53 PM

This thread has gotten venomous! Can't we all start using a more polite tone?
No one here has been spewing any venom!!! You shouldn't say that. These kinds of disagreements happen in threads from time to time. And so far everyone has been polite, but with honesty.

inkspot

08-02-2009, 06:43 PM

Yah, I agree, people have been polite enough in here. They've just disagreed. I hope AK hasn't decided to leave the Forum just because people don't agree about PC. The Forum is so much more than that, and she's a lovely part of it.

Meanwhile, I have a question about that leaked VDT script. How could it begin in London during the war years? Wasn't the war over during PC? And this should be a year later.

Sven-El

08-02-2009, 09:32 PM

Meanwhile, I have a question about that leaked VDT script. How could it begin in London during the war years? Wasn't the war over during PC? And this should be a year later.

Nope, the war wasn't over durring PC. According to the timelines, the events of PC happen durring 1941. WWII was still raging on, and for that matter, Pearl Harbor had yet to be bombed. VODT would be 1942. OR at least in theory. Book time runs differntly then movies, mostly as in the books you don't have to take into account for the child actors aging. Look at Harry Potter, the actors look like they are starting college!

MrBob

08-02-2009, 10:02 PM

"1) From that old `leaked` early draft and from some hints gained from a recent casting call it looks like the opening England sequence is going to have a wartime setting rather than being set in the post war period."

Asbel, we can't base anything on the early leaked draft of the script. Remember, an early script for LWW changed the setting from WWII England to modern day California. The only script that matters is the one they have now, and that won't be leaked.

"Nope, the war wasn't over durring PC. According to the timelines, the events of PC happen durring 1941. WWII was still raging on"

Sven, VotDT puts the idea of when the series takes place into question. There are valid claims on both sides about whether VotDT takes place in wartime England or postwar England. The air raids of London in LWW puts it potentially in 1940 with VotDT in 1942 while Edmund's comment about staying with the Professor "during the war years" as well as the parents taking Susan with them to the US makes it sound as if the war is over.

Personally, I have made my feelings known about this topic on other threads.

MrBob

Sven-El

08-02-2009, 11:21 PM

AsbelMctalisker

08-03-2009, 02:06 AM

"such a trip would have been historically been deemed frivilious, unless of course Mr. Pevenise is like some sort of government official."

Not to mention downright dangerous since it would involve either a sea journey across the Atlantic on a passenger ship dodging the U boats or a long and very uncomfortable trip in a military transport plane via Iceland. I can see Mr Pevensie doing it if his lecture tour is something to do with his war work but not taking other members of his family with him for a holiday!

PS, I know that that old draft is unreliable but it does give an indication of how the people working on the script were thinking about a year ago, and the casting call (you can find it on Narniaweb) appears to be looking for people with a `military` look. Which kind of indicates a more wartime setting.

Sopespian

08-03-2009, 12:14 PM

It did seemed to me that Aravis had gone over the top, but venomous was the wrong choice of words. Great Scott! I should know better than that! :D :D :D

inkspot

08-03-2009, 12:15 PM

Aravis is a doll. She was just annoyed at how we book fans obsess over every little detail. Who could blame her? No worries, Sopespian.

Yah, I was going to say about the timelines -- they're suspect. It had to be after the war before Mr. Pevensie would take his wife and daughter across the water.

Sopespian

08-03-2009, 12:17 PM

Aravis is a doll. She was just annoyed at how we book fans obsess over every little detail. Who could blame her? No worries, Sopespian.

Who, us? Naw, we wouldn't do that, now, would we? :D :D :D

Truman

08-03-2009, 08:00 PM

Who, us? Naw, we wouldn't do that, now, would we? :D :D :D
Maybe not you, but others.... ugh. ;)

BarbarianKing

08-04-2009, 10:58 PM

Maybe not you, but others.... ugh. ;)
Some of us definitely do... on matters of great importance that require a high degree of thought and many decades of life experience rather than just quoting or having logical linear thinking.

Truman

08-05-2009, 01:05 AM

Some of us definitely do... on matters of great importance that require a high degree of thought and many decades of life experience rather than just quoting or having logical linear thinking.
.....Wha-?

inkspot

08-05-2009, 10:04 AM

.....Wha-?
LOL! :)

I think he's saying there's more to life than logic ... although I don't know if Professor Kirke would agree ...

BarbarianKing

08-05-2009, 11:18 PM

Oy!!!!!!!!

Liz

08-06-2009, 04:54 AM

.....Wha-?

Indeed! :D
What BK writes sounds very philosophical, a little like a quote found somewhere ;) - but what does it really mean?!!

Inkspot may be right. But BK's only explanation is "OY!!!!!!!!" Most informative and impressive!! :)

A short comment on the actual topic of this thread: PC was not a very cinematic book, so they apparently thought it necessary to make some changes. Despite the changes I liked PC.
VotDT is completely different, and only Edmund and Lucy come back. I have high hopes for the new film.

And I'll keep repeating it: Sail on, Dawn Treader!!! :)

EveningStar

08-06-2009, 06:39 AM

Liz

08-06-2009, 09:02 AM

Here's the thing...with all the changes that continue to accumulate, by the time they get to The Last Battle they'll be pretty much forced to let the Queen of the Fairies get the magic key to the Dragon Lord's lair and get it to Prince Valiant before the Mystic Chimes of Hys'ldoor ring thrice. Actually I think it's kind of exciting to go to the movie not knowing which side will win.... :D

Are you always that optimistic? :D

Prince Valiant in the last battle! Interesting thought,.. NO! :eek:

As I have stated before I don't think the changes in PC will have much effect on VotDT.
Perhaps some changes in VotDT will have effect on SC and LB! I don't hope so, but we'll have to wait and see.
I still hope for a good film, no matter what others say!! :) If that means someone will consider me being naive, so be it!

inkspot

08-06-2009, 10:27 AM

Are you always that optimistic? :D

Prince Valiant in the last battle! Interesting thought,.. NO! :eek:

As I have stated before I don't think the changes in PC will have much effect on VotDT.
Perhaps some changes in VotDT will have effect on SC and LB! I don't hope so, but we'll have to wait and see.
I still hope for a good film, no matter what others say!! :) If that means someone will consider me being naive, so be it!
No, I am in agreement with you. I think the changes to PC will ot have an impact on VDT because Caspian is supposed to be older in this one, so that shouldn't be an issue (he aged 3 yers to their 1), and since Susan doesn't come back the Suspian thing is not a problem, and since Peter comes back, Brat King Peter is not a problem. Plus VDT book in itself has so much good swashbuckling adventure, they don't have to pull out anything from PC to ruin it. :)

Sopespian

08-06-2009, 12:15 PM

.....Wha-?

Congrats, BK, you stumped Truman! ROTFL

:D:D:D

Truman

08-06-2009, 02:08 PM

Congrats, BK, you stumped Truman! ROTFL

:D:D
Lol, everyone seems to like that. :o

I understand the quote; what I meant was, "How does that have any relation to what I said??" :rolleyes:

Liz

08-06-2009, 02:20 PM

No, I am in agreement with you. I think the changes to PC will ot have an impact on VDT because Caspian is supposed to be older in this one, so that shouldn't be an issue (he aged 3 yers to their 1), and since Susan doesn't come back the Suspian thing is not a problem, and since Peter comes back, Brat King Peter is not a problem. Plus VDT book in itself has so much good swashbuckling adventure, they don't have to pull out anything from PC to ruin it. :)

Yes, exactly! That's it! There will be no major changes in VotDT because of the PC film. Because it's not necessary - end of story.

Thanks, Inkspot. :) Then I'm not the only optimistic person on this thread.

I have a question. English is not my mother tongue. "Swashbuckling" is a great word, and must mean something positive, perhaps heroic. But what's the exact meaning? :o

inkspot

08-06-2009, 04:29 PM

I think it means adventure on the high seas, like daring things a pirate would do would be called "swashbuckling." I don't know the origin!

Liz

08-06-2009, 06:53 PM

I think it means adventure on the high seas, like daring things a pirate would do would be called "swashbuckling." I don't know the origin!

Thanks! Thought it meant something like that. :)

Great word. I hope we get a lot of swashbuckling stuff in VotDT! And that Reepicheep will be portrayed as a swashbuckling hero!! (Did I mention that I like that mouse?! :D)

As you say, there should be enough to pick from in the book.

Truman

08-07-2009, 12:05 AM

Then I'm not the only optimistic person on this thread.
Lol, no you aren't, because I'm optimistic about everything. I was even optimistic about The Mummy 3 through all the hundreds of terrible reviews, and I even watched it! Hated it though. D**n Rob Cohen!!! Ruined Rick. :mad:
I think it means adventure on the high seas, like daring things a pirate would do would be called "swashbuckling." I don't know the origin!
You bet your... You bet! :o

Especially with David Arnold taking over as composer. I just finished listening to the 2-disc version of the "Independence Day" soundtrack and thought afterward, MY LORD why didn't they get him instead of Gregson-Williams for LWW and PC?? And not just action, I'm talking emotional moments included. That soundtrack has made me so excited about the upcoming VDT score... it's beyond me. It's definately going to be magnificent... And he's a master at adapting music if anything can be said on the newer James Bond films he's done.

Arvan

08-07-2009, 01:35 AM

I LOVED Gregson-Williams' score! It was BEAUTIFULL!

inkspot

08-07-2009, 09:57 AM

I LOVED Gregson-Williams' score! It was BEAUTIFULL!
Yah, I have no complaints about the music, but I am looking forward to the VDT score, too. There's so much excitement in the story, it should be really dramatic compositions. Really movie scores are the "classical" music of our day ...

Sopespian

08-07-2009, 11:37 AM

The music was definitely one of the best parts of the PC movie.

Liz

08-13-2009, 05:34 AM

Lol, no you aren't, because I'm optimistic about everything.

Good! :) And sounds great that you like the new composer.

I did like the music for the first films, though. Especially Mr. Tumnus' flute, beautiful melody and well orchestrated, I think. But I'm ok with the change. Let's see (or rather hear :D) what happens!

sfl1983

08-14-2009, 03:11 AM

inkspot

08-14-2009, 11:45 AM

I agree with what someone else says that what happened in PC will not effect VDT as Caspian is older and there is no peter or susan in here.So the susan caspian romance wont be in here. I however dont agree with what someone says that Edmund is going back to his old ways in VDT when hes not. if i remember rightly from the book he only changes as does caspiain on doom island when they get cursed or whatever you would like to call it looking at the gold.he gets annoyed with Eutuce because ofhow rude and fowl he is when he starts out.
Welcome, sfl I didn't see you post before! :)

I agree with you that Peter and Susan and whatevr they did in PC will not be an issue in VDT. But, I cannot share your optimism that Ed's character might not suffer -- you say in the books he did not revert, which I agree with, he didn't; but in the PC book, Peter's character was not a bratty spoiled baby king, and yet in the film that's just what he was. So we cannot wholly look to the books for cues about how the characters will be portrayed on film.

That said, I think with a new director and with more attention to what the fans had to say, I believe the new film will not fall into the trap of deranging the older characters for the sake of making the newer ones look good.

sfl1983

08-14-2009, 11:52 AM

Welcome, sfl I didn't see you post before! :)

I agree with you that Peter and Susan and whatevr they did in PC will not be an issue in VDT. But, I cannot share your optimism that Ed's character might not suffer -- you say in the books he did not revert, which I agree with, he didn't; but in the PC book, Peter's character was not a bratty spoiled baby king, and yet in the film that's just what he was. So we cannot wholly look to the books for cues about how the characters will be portrayed on film.

That said, I think with a new director and with more attention to what the fans had to say, I believe the new film will not fall into the trap of deranging the older characters for the sake of making the newer ones look good.

I hope they don't as Ed is a good chracter and i hatedwhat they did to peter in PC.

AsbelMctalisker

08-17-2009, 01:36 PM

I`m not really all that worried myself, In VOTDT we have Eustace who is supposed to be bratty anyway so they will HAVE to keep Edmund the way he is supposed to be just to give the character someone to play off.

My main worry has been that they were going to incorporate elements of `Silver Chair` in to the screenplay but so far at any rate there has been no hint of that.

I-Love-Edmund

08-21-2009, 05:14 PM

Well obviously they are going to have to find a way to make Caspian non-sleezy (after his little fling with Queen Susan in PC) when it comes to his scenes with Ramandu's daughter. In order to do that they could just take look shots. You know, they exchange "glances" that go unnoticed by Edmund and Lucy.

I-Love-Edmund

08-21-2009, 05:23 PM

I agree with what someone else says that what happened in PC will not effect VDT as Caspian is older and there is no peter or susan in here.So the susan caspian romance wont be in here. I however dont agree with what someone says that Edmund is going back to his old ways in VDT when hes not. if i remember rightly from the book he only changes as does caspiain on doom island when they get cursed or whatever you would like to call it looking at the gold.he gets annoyed with Eutuce because ofhow rude and fowl he is when he starts out.

I agree. In VODT Edmund does not go back to his old ways, he's not the only one who gets aggrevated with Eustace, and Caspian is also effected by the spell of doom island. I don't think they are going to make Edmund seem that way (atleast they better not) I think they just might give him more of a leadership role. In PC they made him look like Peter's assistant, which he completely is not in the book. Since Peter isn't in Dawn Treader I they are going to give Edmund more charge (atleast over Lucy at any rate).

inkspot

08-21-2009, 06:10 PM

Welcome I-Love-Edmund. I didn't see you post before. :)

I don't think that Caspian appeared sleazy -- or that he had a "fling" with Susan. It was just a little flirtation, and I don't think they have to do anything in VDT to fix it. They can just ignore it and start new as far as I'm concerned.

Truman

08-21-2009, 07:12 PM

Well obviously they are going to have to find a way to make Caspian non-sleezy (after his little fling with Queen Susan in PC) when it comes to his scenes with Ramandu's daughter.
Woah woah! Caspian isn't sleazy just because he took liking to Susan! The actual attraction itself isn't wrong, come on. Choose your words wisely... He was never sleazy.

Sven-El

08-21-2009, 07:27 PM

Woah woah! Caspian isn't sleazy just because he took liking to Susan! The actual attraction itself isn't wrong, come on. Choose your words wisely... He was never sleazy.

Yeah. Cheesy? YEs. Contrived? Yes. Forced and slightly wooden, potentialy. Obejctioned by fans, and cast members? Yes. but sleezy. No. The stuff between Caspian and Susan was most definitly. ANd as for fling... well that term mans that a "bit" more happened then just the two of them kissing...

Truman

08-21-2009, 07:59 PM

Well, I'm sure the 53% of the 39,000 voters on IMDb who rated it a 7-10 would disagree. The user reviews for Rotten Tomatoes is a staggeringly high 79%. 71% of Amazon reviewers gave a 4-5. Need I go on? Case closed, the majority of the fans rules that "Prince Caspian" is a good film.

I-Love-Edmund

08-21-2009, 09:25 PM

I didn't mean he was or is sleazy, (knowing how Hollywood over does the romance scenes, they will probably make the romance b/w him and R's daughter more than what was 'mentioned' in the book), I meant that it might not look that cool to Ed and Lucy after he had the one with their sister. I don't know, that's just how I see it.

Aravis Kenobi

08-21-2009, 09:27 PM

I-Love-Edmund

08-21-2009, 09:31 PM

It should pose no problem. It's been 3 years for Caspian, he's gotten over it, therefore Ed and Lucy will probably forget about it. I think that Edmund and Lucy both are old enough to realize that, you know, if Aslan said Peter and Susan couldn't stay, then obviously Susan/Caspian wasn't meant to be. Unless they make it out to be a problem, and the writers are the ones who are writing this, btw, I don't think Ed and Lucy will think much about it (they'll probably be far too occupied with Eustace's whining :p )

Yea true, I just hope the writers don't over-do everything, meaning I hope they don't turn everything into more drama than it needs to be.

Liz

08-22-2009, 04:17 AM

It should pose no problem. It's been 3 years for Caspian, he's gotten over it, therefore Ed and Lucy will probably forget about it. I think that Edmund and Lucy both are old enough to realize that, you know, if Aslan said Peter and Susan couldn't stay, then obviously Susan/Caspian wasn't meant to be. Unless they make it out to be a problem, and the writers are the ones who are writing this, btw, I don't think Ed and Lucy will think much about it (they'll probably be far too occupied with Eustace's whining :p )

Exactly! It can never be held against Caspian that Susan can't come back! It's not his decision, nor hers. They were not ment to be, that's it! They shared a farewell kiss, that's all.

Caspian can't be expected to go through life without marrying, because Susan can't come back. He has to get an heir to the throne as well. So I don't think Lucy and Edmund will think about it, at least not much! ;)

Zella

08-23-2009, 07:26 PM

inkspot

08-27-2009, 08:52 AM

I don't really see how any of the changes to PC are going to affect VoDT. The only major ones were the raid on the castle, Peter's attitude, and the Caspian/Susan thing and aside from Caspian getting married at the end of VoDT none of that should matter; even that shouldn't change anything.
Exactly. As ghastly as some of the changes were, none of them need to affect VDT film at all because they all pertain to people/situations that won't even be present in this film. The only one that even matters in VDT is Caspian's advanced age, and that actually works as a plus because he is supposed to have aged more than Ed and Lucy.

AsbelMctalisker

08-27-2009, 09:18 AM

With hindsight, perhaps the casting of Ben as Caspian was done with that in mind.
If they were thinking in terms of Ben playing Caspian from a teenager in PC, through a man in his prime in VOTDT and finally as an old man in SC then perhaps their choice makes a bit more sense.

lieke

08-27-2009, 01:26 PM

Why, i do hope they won't wait with filming SC untill Ben Barnes is actually that old :p

I agree that the changes don't have to effect Voyage. But if everyone on the crew agrees with the major changes in the movie, than i fear that they might agree with major changes on Voyage too. So i don't fear for the effects of Caspian, but i fear that the 'movie-making-spirit' continues in Voyage.

But i have hope :D I tend to be quite an optimist :p

Zella

08-29-2009, 10:14 AM

Exactly. As ghastly as some of the changes were, none of them need to affect VDT film at all because they all pertain to people/situations that won't even be present in this film. The only one that even matters in VDT is Caspian's advanced age, and that actually works as a plus because he is supposed to have aged more than Ed and Lucy.

Thank you! That really clarified the point I was trying to make and couldn't quite put in the right words. (Except I don't think the changes are ghastly. But that's slightly off topic so I'll be quiet.;))