Handling the changes they made to PC and their effects on Dawn Treader

[~Lava~]

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.

[inkspot]

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]

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~]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Darth Sparhawk]

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]

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]

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 think that their mark in imdb is similar. The trouble with PC is that connected with appaling strategy by Disney, IMO and with the fantasy weakening slowly.

[HugsForReepicheep]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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: