Peter was the humble leader. He did not have all the answers but he knew that he was accountable to Aslan. Aslan would accomplish his plan, even if Peter could only take the steps that he could discern at the time. He came as a servant to establish another leader. He knew that there were some thing he could not do for power no matter how desirable his goal was.

I think that by changing Peter’s character, the film took the heart out of the book. In the movie Peter was just another insecure guy who couldn’t handle letting go of his power. It’s sad because the first book was so on target.

We *did* see the dancing trees and Lucy’s vision of Aslan, and it was lovely.
BUT, I do agree that Peter’s character (and perhaps Susan’s) were somewhat distorted. I could understand why the filmmakers did this and where it came from, but it bothered me a bit.

Nevertheless, a few very positive messages came through loud and clear, This film was ultimately about the need for faith, and also about the need for reconciliation. Those themes were quite clear in the book as well, so no problems there. Otherwise – Lucy and Edmund were great, Caspian was good, I LOVED Trumpkin and really liked Reepicheep. I do wish we had seen more of Aslan, but still, I honestly thought the film had a great deal more substance than most films you see. I liked it. And I”m a huge fan of the books, and have lost count of the number of times I have read or heard them.

I’m really looking forward to “Dawn Treader”

In the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (the book, not the movie)…the battle was about two or three sentences in the last chapter. It certainly wasn’t that way in the movie.

Although I have yet to see Prince Caspian (and I will probably see it in the near future), I am sure that they have done the same…big battle scene for what is described as a few words in the book. From what I have seen advertised Prince Caspian is a young man, not a boy about Edmund’s age (as indicated in the text). So where is the romance?

What are essentially decent books (and of such length that the movies could actually be faithful to the text), why does Hollywood have to turn everything into violence and battles? Isn’t the story enough? Apparently not!

If they are to do all the movies with the Pevensies, they need to do the Horse and His Boy pretty soon, too. Susan is being courted in Calormene in that story. I think Edmund might in it, too although it has been a while since I have read it.

As I said, just a few random thoughts…

I do agree with Gladius above that, as a movie, PC is a better movie than LWW. But, agreeing with Tweak above, it is definitely not the book. Often people talk about using a book as a “blueprint” for a movie — my guess is that those kinds of discussions were held here.

As for future movies… I wouldn’t hold my breath for The Silver Chair and The Horse and His Boy. Dawn Treader is in pre-production right now. It of course has Georgie Henley and Skander Keynes — oh, and Ben Barnes — to link it to the familiar movies as a bona fide sequel. After that, *if* there is a 4th movie (box office will be the sole determinant of that), my bet is Magician’s Nephew — because of the familiar link of the White Witch, and the sense that it returns us to the beginning of the saga.

But they could easily end it there. The only story link to Silver Chair and Horse and His Boy is Aslan — and given that Aslan seems to be a minor character in the movies, that’s not much of a marketing link for the studio. Combine that with the fact that Disney has pretty much dissolved its output deal with Walden Media, and there’s not much reason to force a continuation of the movies past no. 3 or maybe 4.

(Unless they make a lot of money, of course.)

http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/reviews/2008/princecaspian.html

The kitties like Aslan…

I have never been in a war. I have read and seen enough of it second hand to be able to say with some certainty that what war is like is something I don’t want children to see.

Of course the Narnia movies are fantasy, and we assume that many, if not most, of the the chidren who come to see the movies can tell the difference. My 7 year-old does understand the concept. That doesn’t prevent me from explaining to him, whenever anyone is killed or wounded or frightened on the screen that it is “pretend”, that the “blood” is fake, the “wounds” are make-up and the “lost” limbs are still attached. So not having the “blood” on the sword is easier for me.

This is not to say that my 7 year-old does not understand the concept of swords and blood. He explained to me, very carefully, that a sword would have to be cleaned of blood after doing its work. But again, that knowledge does not mean he won’t be disturbed by the sight of blood.

So thank you to the director / producers / art directors of Prince Caspian for making going to the movies easier for me and my 7 year-old.

The other changes were ok. I thought portraying Miraz and co. as conquistadores worked well. It conveyed the right associations for how the characters acted toward Narnia in the book. But overall I am very disappointed because they really got the portrayal of the children right in the first movie. I was hoping this one would be good too.