Prince Caspian

ah, these were my son's favorite books. He never really liked the Harry Potter books because they weren't as good as these.

We saw the The Lion, the witch, etc., and didn't care for it. But I am anxious to see this one. However, the 2 Ebert and Roeper critics said that it was AWFUL!
.

We saw it and loved it.

I can't wait til my daughter is able to read the books. I tried reading them to her, but it's not good enough. You really need to be able to get caught up into the whole story to truly experience it.

The movie was great but can't be as good as reading the book.

I felt the same with Lord of the Rings. The movies were great, but you've got to read the books.

I saw it (missed the first 10-15 minutes) and didn't think it was as good as the first one. Some cool scenes & ideas, but it felt like the 2nd Rings movie - like I was just getting fed filler/the connector for the next installment.

I plan on seeing. Will compare to classic BBC version which you can purchase in a three dvd pack that includes Disc 1 - The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe; Disc 2 - Prince Caspian and The Voyage of The Dawn Treader and Disc 3 - The Silver Chair. The BBC production is dated now, but it does include a recipe for Turkish Delight.

I plan on seeing. Will compare to classic BBC version which you can purchase in a three dvd pack that includes Disc 1 - The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe; Disc 2 - Prince Caspian and The Voyage of The Dawn Treader and Disc 3 - The Silver Chair. The BBC production is dated now, but it does include a recipe for Turkish Delight.

IF YOU DON'T WANT ANY DETAILS AT ALL, DON'T READ THIS. (minor spoilers.)

I never did really like that version, but I admit that I didn't get past the 1st one. I like that this one conveys the excitement of the story (which, to me, didn't read in the BBC version).

What puzzles me is that Lewis' storytelling skills are amazing. I think I loved the books as a child so well because I could visualize the story in my head easily. In Prince Caspian, several chapters are devoted to the dwarf Trumpkin telling the children the story of Caspian's life. Lewis says something to the effect of "This is the story he told them, without all the children's questions and interruptions." Then the book launches into flashback, which would be really easy to do in the movie. I don't understand why they changed the order of the story the way they did.

One of the things I didn't mind was the addition of some love interest in Susan's character. She also talks about getting used to the idea that she lives in England, not Narnia. It's foreshadowing--(spoiler) in one of the later books Lucy says that she is only interested in lipstick and boys and thinks it's funny how the others still talk about the games they played as children. She never returns to Narnia.

(I read an interview with J.K. Rowling criticizing the Chronicles specifically for this reason--she said that the implication was that sexual awareness will keep you out of heaven. I doubt that was Lewis' meaning--I took it to mean that you simply should not store up your treasure on earth; if the things of the temporal world are the only things that matter, then they are all you will have.)

I was glad of this change, because I remember being shocked by the sudden revelation of Susan's desertion when I was a child. But they have also added a real dark side to Peter's character that was never implied in the original books. I don't like it at all...it almost seems to me that they are saying that since he is a teenager and an eldest child he is bound to be selfish. Lewis wrote his mistakes in the story, but his Peter was a young man of good character (which is not unheard of.)

(Another spoiler alert) They also left a chunk out of Caspian that involved some of the children seeing Aslan while others didn't, and a debate over following him or not. They cut this part, which was good-sized, down to a very diluted scene. I always considered this to be the primary point of the story, and I was really bothered to see it swapped for a fabricated sideline regarding Peter's ego.

Okay...I could go on about this for a week. Love these books....

NoHall: You are so right. The BBC version is well ... a BBC version. But, I still like to watch it once or twice a decade. I'll also agree with you on other points about Peter being a young man of good character. Not having quite the background as you on this, I had never heard J.K. Rowling's comments. Perhaps it might have seemed that Lewis felt that way, but he did eventually marry. I did enjoy the movie, Shadowlands, about his love affair and eventual marriage late in life. I have all these dvds. Perhaps I'll have to have a rainy day Lewis movie marathon and invite all who would like to watch. If you get bored, you can always go on the back porch and listen to waves. That never bores me.

NoHall: You are so right. The BBC version is well ... a BBC version. But, I still like to watch it once or twice a decade. I'll also agree with you on other points about Peter being a young man of good character. Not having quite the background as you on this, I had never heard J.K. Rowling's comments. Perhaps it might have seemed that Lewis felt that way, but he did eventually marry. I did enjoy the movie, Shadowlands, about his love affair and eventual marriage late in life. I have all these dvds. Perhaps I'll have to have a rainy day Lewis movie marathon and invite all who would like to watch. If you get bored, you can always go on the back porch and listen to waves. That never bores me.

I love Shadowlands! Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger were both so good in that movie that I still imagine Lewis and his wife looking like that.

The books appeal to me because of my deep love for children's literature, but I also recommend them to people on a regular basis because of the simple presentation of theology. His description of heaven (as the "shadowlands") is the most beautiful I've ever heard. I think I've even talked about it on this board before--makes me weep with joy.

I found a book in a stack of sale books once that I really liked. It's a companion to the Narnia books by a guy named Brian Sibley, who has written quite a bit about Lewis. (He has actually written quite a bit about a lot of different authors and books.) It's called The Land of Narnia. Love it...

I read the entire collection in elementary school, so I don't remember exactly what happened. I saw the movie yesterday, and enjoyed it immensely (And not just because Ben Barnes is one of the most gorgeous guys to walk the earth). After reading this thread, I'm gonna go back and reread Prince Caspian for the complete story.

I've always felt like a book and a movie should be looked at as two entirely different entities. They are two completely contrasting works of art; One through image, and the other through words. There are going to be differences and there are going to be similarities, but they should BOTH be appreciated for what they are, instead of what they aren't.

I understand that they should stick to the intended plot line, but when creating a movie, screenwriters have to "telescope time," as my english teacher likes to say. They have to blend a few hundred page book into a 2 hour movie, while still maintaining that magical feeling. So they have to take a few things out and rewrite a few other things to make sure that it's sensible with the story. Unfortunate, but who wants to sit in a theatre for 8 hours?

Alright... I'm done rambling. Basically, I'm just suggesting that you guys give the movie the benefit of the doubt. And just think of how many people will be interested in reading the book now that they've seen the movie!

Sorry, Kase--I wasn't bashing the movie. I really did like it. And I do recommend it.

However...

I agree with the "telescoping time" usually. But this is a children's book. It's only 216 pages. Much simpler than the Harry Potter books, and those stayed pretty true. I just don't understand why they made the fundamental changes in characters and story. These stories are more than 50 years old. After that long, it seems like they could come up with a more authentic screenplay.

As for Ben Barnes, he looks just like a young Keanu Reeves (which is not a bad thing in my book!)

I mentioned this to my brother and he guffawed--he said that explained why he kept thinking "excellent!" with a little air guitar riff every time Caspian did something good.

And does anyone else think it's just a coincidence that young King Peter looks a lot like young Prince William of Wales?

Is that the same King Peter who played in the BBC production? If not, they must be brothers. I have the books. Think I'll go take a look and review.

Is that the same King Peter who played in the BBC production? If not, they must be brothers. I have the books. Think I'll go take a look and review.

Isn't the BBC production pretty old? Is it the one that was out 15 or more years ago? William Moseley is the brand-spanking new Peter.

Kase, if it helps, I think they have kept Lucy exactly the way she was in the books. They did a beautiful job with her. (Here's where I show my geekiness: the original illustrations of Lucy, by Pauline Baynes, show her as having dark hair. This always confused me, since the cartoon I saw as a child pictured her as a blonde. But I only realized recently that in The Last Battle she is described as "fair-haired." But if this Lucy lines up with the original illustrations, I can live with that. )

I also love Aslan, and I was afraid that I wouldn't. For that matter, Edmund and Susan are well done. They gave Edmund extra lines in Caspian, but I thought they were true to his character as well.

It is about that old. What is William Moseley's age? He may be one of those people that age more slowly than others. They might just have cast someone that looked very much like the earlier Peter.

What about little IBD seeing it? She saw LW&W and loved it. She was not scared at all.

Thanks!!

Not sure - I thought this one was a little more violent than the first w/ more sword fights and battle scenes.

Caspian is a hottie ................. until his character gets so douchey you lose interest and just want to tell him to wash his greasy hair/get a haircut!

As for Ben Barnes, he looks just like a young Keanu Reeves (which is not a bad thing in my book!)

He stole my heart in Stardust. When I found out it was the same guy, I knew we were destined to be together. He just needs to meet me.

What about little IBD seeing it? She saw LW&W and loved it. She was not scared at all.

Thanks!!

It's pretty intense, but I went with my brother and his family. We left the 4-yr-old with Grammy, but my 10-yo niece, 9-yo nephew and 7-yo nephew all went. None of them had a problem with it. It's darker than LW&W and has more fighting, but is not as rough as Lord of the Rings.

It is about that old. What is William Moseley's age? He may be one of those people that age more slowly than others. They might just have cast someone that looked very much like the earlier Peter.

Moseley is 21, according to imdb.

It's pretty intense, but I went with my brother and his family. We left the 4-yr-old with Grammy, but my 10-yo niece, 9-yo nephew and 7-yo nephew all went. None of them had a problem with it. It's darker than LW&W and has more fighting, but is not as rough as Lord of the Rings.

thanks, we will have to go and check it out...

thanks, we will have to go and check it out...

How old is she? (I can't remember! I see her sweet self in my head, but can't put an age on her.) My 10 yo niece sat next to me and didn't even flinch, and she's a tenderhearted girly-girl. 7 yo nephew was on the other side and didn't flinch, either, but he has watched the Lord of the Rings stuff (he's a boy, in other words!)

Little IBD and I took a break today and went to Pier Park to see Prince Caspian.

• we both loved it
• it was more violent and a few "dark" scenes
• little IBD actually got the giggles during the war scenes...
• Prince Caspian is a hottie

Now I want to read the book again and check out the differences...

NoHall, I totally agree w/your assessment! Here's my 'added' two cents:(potential spoilers-read w/caution)
I too was upset about the scene where Lucy confronts the others about seeing Aslan and the group persuades her she didn't etc...it was too reduced. I felt the same way in LWW when Edmond goes through the wardrobe and can't find Lucy...he's trudging through the snow and in the book, he's having this entire internal conflict: 'she'll probably rub it in my face, the others will always take her side, etc.' and then he meets the queen. Well, in the cartoon version, that internal dialogue was disclosed and in the movie, they ignored it completely!!! HUGE mistake in my book!! What a waste!!:angry: That was a crucial scene of disclosing Edmond's heart and him being 'set up' to believe the queen...which is followed-up later by talking to Aslan and it's all part of his transformation. Granted, at least in PC the extra lines they gave Edmond were true to his new character, so I felt somewhat compensated for the lack of his development in the first movie.

Secondly, I felt the scene w/Lucy in the woods when she does go meet Aslan was also diminished from the book. Another crucial scene, IMHO, that wasn't quite 'BIG' enough.

In general, my husband and I were a little uncertain about seeing PC b/c we really felt like LWW was a disappointment. This is coming mostly from being raised by reading the books and watching the cartoon version (which is INCREDIBLE!). My biggest peeve w/the new version was the queen...she wasn't nearly as eccentric as she is portrayed in the books/cartoon. She looked right, but she never commanded the scene. Her voice never shook you, her attempts to hide her internal thirst for power never jarred you, so when her 'true' colors were revealed in the climactic scene of slaying Aslan, you weren't impressed b/c everything about her was too subdued.In addition to that, Aslan wasn't portrayed 'BIG' enough for my taste either. So, PC was a chance to redeem the stories for me...and it did
I thought they're finally starting to take these stories to the level they should be. PC was a LOT better as far as the effects/and overall seriousness of the story. It felt more like an epic movie, like LOTR. They did leave out some critical things, minimized other things that should have been of import, but overall, they did a much better job. My hope is that Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be even better produced and that Lewis' genius will convey, now that we have the movie technology to attempt it.

As an aside, I think J.K.R's comments were misguided. I always felt that Lewis was trying to say that 'heaven' can only be seen through the eyes of a child--or, as the Bible puts it: 'the pure in heart', of any age. He, IMHO, was saying that when we choose to 'grow up', we lose our child-like imagination, we lose the ability to believe the 'ridiculous' with ease and need to be proved something is real instead of taking it on faith. So we become blind to that other world that exists.
Alright...that's all of my Narnia ramblings!! If you made it to the end of this soap box, congratulate yourself now and get back to whatever it is you were doing!