"Instead of" Aslan?

Copperfox

Well-known member
Of the _countless_ things which were done wrong in "Prince NON-Caspian," one of the wrongest was the way the river-god was handled. They made it look as if Aslan were _unable_ to handle the Telmarines at the river _unless_ the river-god intervened. Like Aslan could be out of His depth and really needing help.
 
Really? That's not how I saw it. It looked to me as though Aslan's roar was empowering and/or summoning the river god for the task he needed to do.

Peeps
 
Really? That's not how I saw it. It looked to me as though Aslan's roar was empowering and/or summoning the river god for the task he needed to do.

Peeps
I agree. I was not a fan of that whole sequence, even back when I was dumb and naive enough to be mostly okay with the movie. Still, even though I didn't like it, I never saw the river god as taking over Aslan's job. Aslan was mobilizing him to do his work, just as God can use different people and circumstances in the world to bring about his purposes.
 
Well it is some what different that the book. Here is how it reads in the book:
They turned a little to the right, raced down a steep hill, and found the long Bridge of Beruna in front of them. Before they had begun to cross it, however, up out of the water came a great wet, bearded head, larger than a man's, crowned with rushes. It looked at Aslan and out of its mouth a deep voice came.
"Hail, Lord," it said. "Loose my chains."
"Who on earth is that?" whispered Susan.
"I think it's the river-god, but hush," said Lucy.
"Bacchus," said Aslan. "Deliver him from his chains."
"That means the bridge, I expect," thought Lucy. And so it did. Bacchus and his people splashed forward into the shallow water, and a minute later the most curious things began happening. Great, strong trunks of ivy came curling up all the piers of the bridge, growing as quickly as a fire grows, wrapping the stones round, splitting, breaking, separating them. The walls of the bridge turned into hedges gay with hawthorn for a moment and then disappeared as the whole thing with a rush and a rumble collapsed into the swirling water. With much splashing, screaming, and laughter the revellers waded or swam or danced across the ford ("Hurrah! It's the Ford of Beruna again now!" cried the girls) and up the bank on the far side and into the town.
 
Last edited:
More than that, my biggest problem was the attack Aslan made on the Telmarine soldier. In LWW movie, he jumped at Jadis and perfectly pushed her back on the ground without missing a beat. In PC, he jumped at the soldier and he fell off the horse as both together rolled on the ground.

The rolling on the ground made him not look as majestic.

MrBob
 
Good remark, MrBob.

I do not literally think that the writers of "Prince NON-Caspian" said to themselves, "Let's make a _statement_ that Aslan can't get the job done without the river-god's help." Yet a _feeling_ like that was generated.
 
I don't think it would occur that way to someone who was not intimately familiar with the books, though. Of all the things Andrew Adamson changed, this one was fairly minor. Leaving in the whole sequence of Aslan freeing Narnia would have been better, and avoided leaving out how Aslan freed the River God. Unfortunately, I'm not sure that even the most book-devoted movie director (not Adamson, obviously) could have pulled that off and still created a decent movie.
 
Andrew Adamson DIDN'T WANT to create a decent NARNIAN movie; he wanted to create Ferris Bueller with swords, Dawson's Creek with chainmail. But yes, Glenburne, he REALLY should have depicted the liberation of Narnia THAT LEWIS WROTE, including the part where Caspian's old nursemaid proves to be alive after all.
 
No, I'm with Glenburne. The sequencing of Prince Caspian makes for a reasonable book but would make a poor film, and so a lot of changes were needed. I liked the inclusion of the political side of things in the film. I hated what was done to Peter's character, and was sad at the loss of some wise and perceptive comments, but otherwise I actually thought the film was an improvement on the book in many ways. Although as I grow older I am coming to appreciate more of the way in which Prince Caspian (the book) ends, as a child it always seemed rather odd to me and the book always was (and remains) my least favourite of the Chronicles. The film, by contrast, is my favourite of the three. LWW was pretty good too, though (in contrast to those in PC) I didn't feel that the changes from the book served to enhance it. VDT was catastrophically bad, with the sole exception of the CGI for the ship.

Peeps
 
Of course the movies are not as good as the books, they will always lack the author's touch. But I will say of the three movies that have come out recently, Prince Caspian I would rate the best. Yes, there are problems I would love to fix, but I managed to like it some what more than the first movie and definitely more than the third movie.

I liked the Aslan in the Prince Caspian movie the best just because of the interaction between Lucy and Aslan, but I will say the Aslan of the first movie was more majestic. Now the Aslan of VDT movie can't be compared, because He really wasn't a major player, which is a shame, because you feel His presence so much more in the book.
 
I can see how you would feel that way CopperFox. It does make sense. From the way I look at it though it's showing more parts to Aslan's sort of powers. We see something in each movie.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top