Prince Caspian... (minor spoilers)

[GhaleonOne]

Did anyone else see it yet? I'm a huge Narnia fan (about as much as Lunar at this point). As a movie, it was great, but I was a bit annoyed by a bit of the characterizations. I don't mind the story changes (the raid on the Telmarine Castle, and especially the extended bit where Jadis almost comes back were great) but they made Peter out to be this prideful egotistical character. He was far more honorable and respectable in the book. In fact, it almost seemed Peter and Susan switched roles. It was Susan who was so adamant against believing Lucy when she claimed to see Aslan, but in the movie, Susan came across far better than Peter.

However, Edmund and Lucy's characters were pretty much spot on. Caspian was older than in the book, but it worked, and the actor did a good job. In fact, all four of the children from the first movie have gotten a lot better at acting. It reminds me of Harry Potter a bit. Looking at the first movie or two, the acting definitely got better as the kids got older. I think Narnia will be the same way.

Oh, and Reepicheep is the bomb!

[Pisces]

I saw it, and really enjoyed it. Thought it had a lot better flow than the first movie did. The director still needs to learn that slow-motion shouldn't be used every fiften minutes, but I still really liked it.

I actually thought the bit with Peter and Caspian butting heads was interesting. And actually, they've started hinting at a tragic future bit regarding Susan's character - they allude to her not "looking" for Aslan, and if you recall in the final book, she is the only character no longer with the others.

I was delighted by Eddie Izzard voicing Reepicheep, and I thought it was funny that Warwick Davis played Nikabrik, since Warwick actually played Reepicheep in the PBS/BBC version years ago.

The extended bit with Jadis was really well done. It was a nice moment that was expanded upon from the book.

I'm actually wondering if they're going to have Tilda Swinton play the Emerald Lady in "The Silver Chair".....it kind of suggests in that book that she may or may not be a reincarnation (or at least a similar spirit) as Jadis, and I know in the BBC version, it was the same actress.

[GhaleonOne]

She could do a good job if she played the Emerald Lady.

The more and more I think about it, there were things I'm not sure I agreed with on Reepicheep. "Shut up" to the squirrel wasn't something Reep would have said. It was far more honorable than that. But still good. I still dislike how they portrayed Peter for so much of it.

It was a good movie though, and flowed well. The extended Jadis scene probably was my favorite change.

I really want A Horse and His Boy made into a movie, but Caspian did below what they expected (What did they expect anyways? In the week between Ironman and Indiana Jones...). A Horse and His Boy could make a great adventure movie.

[ilovemyguitar]

I loved it. And yeah, the extended Jadis scene was fairly awesome.

I'm super-excited about the prospect of Voyage of the Dawn Treader being made. That's my favorite book in the series (with The Silver Chair running a close second). The scenes where Eustice goes through his "transformation" will be great on the big screen.

[Old Jericho]

I'm going to agree with Pisces about Peter and Caspian butting heads: I thought it added another layer to the movie, and while the book portrayed Peter otherwise, I think the tension was necessary for screen. The only thing that really bugged me was the whole romantic subplot between Susan and Prince Caspian. At first, it was kind of funny, but eventually it just got annoying. But, I suppose that's what would really happen, supposing Narnia was real, which it was, but now its gone...shame...

[CatsWithMatches]

I just saw it myself, and I thought it was marvelous.

I'll second The Horse and his Boy for the next film. That was my favorite book, too.

[Alunissage]

I didn't see the first movie, and I haven't read the books in (I think) 15 years. So I went into this knowing the basic details of the story and knowing the premise pretty well, but forgetting whole scenes and chunks of the story until being reminded of them (like, oh, the very beginning of the movie), and not being familiar with the actors at all. Which wasn't a bad place to be.

Overall, I thought it was pretty well done and had very few conflicts with the images and such that I have in my head from a quarter-century of being very fond of the series. So that was a very pleasant surprise. One thing that sticks out to me is that I always visualized the four thrones as being in a square, two and two, rather than in a line, but that was purely my own visualization and it kind of amused me that that was the only thing I could think of that seemed particularly different. I liked seeing details I did recall, like the gold horseman, the apples around Cair Paravel (even if the archery contest with the DLF was cut), and the bear.

The thing with not remembering large chunks of the book is that I have no recollection of whether there was conflict between Caspian and Peter (I can understand that it would be logical, thinking all your life that you're the heir to the throne and then these historical, mighty kings and queens that are your own age show up and could well just reign again), and no recollection of a scene of attacking the Telmarine castle. It's a bit of a relief to hear that both that and the actual appearance of the White Witch were added, because while I remembered the scene with Nikidik and his cohorts, and even the line that the crone says about the circle, I hadn't recalled the White Witch actually being summoned.

I really hated the dumb romantic thread that was stuck in at the end. Basically, if the movie had ended about three minutes earlier than it did I would have been happier, because that would have gotten rid of the idiotic pop song at the end. Is there just a giant hole in the head of every director when it comes to this, a blind spot in the esthetic sense or something? It adds nothing, the words made little sense in the context, the voice was American when no one in the movie had that accent, the music didn't fit...ugh. So stupid.

I was wondering how they'll handle Susan if they make the last book into a movie too. That particular point is why I can barely stand to read that book despite loving the series. The first time I read it, and I think I've mentioned this before, I was in floods of tears for thinking how she'd be left all alone in this world with her entire family gone -- even her parents, who were not previously associated with Narnia. It still depresses me every time.

Oh, yeah. Another reason why tacking on a romantic element was dumb. Caspian finds his bride at the end of the third book. Why dilute that with this bit here?

I didn't see Peter as being that unreasonably arrogant, at least not excessively, other than the childish fight in the first scene. I plan to reread the book anyway so I guess I'll see if that seems out of place when I do. I thought that the kids were surprisingly well done, especially Lucy, and usually child actors grate on my nerves.

I loved the low-light bits in the beginning. I just really like that kind of night. But what really got me is how much I found myself thinking of Hyrule in Twilight Princess throughout the movie. The field at night when Caspian escapes. The ruins of Cair Paravel reminding me of the Temple of Time. The rooftops of the Telmarine castle. I'm sure there were others that aren't coming to mind now. Heck, just throw Peter into some green and give him Susan's bow and you're set. Also, the last time I read these books, I just realized, was before I started playing RPGs. I seem to see everything like this through the RPG lens now, and I practically expected to see health bars for Miraz and Peter. You got your swordsman, your archer, your healer, and... well, I don't know what Edmund would be, since he had no special gift. Offensive magic, I guess, by elimination.

[Old Jericho]

I can only pray that they treat Susan the same way in the movie that they did in the book. Lewis gets a lot of crap for his treatment of Susan, but I think that people fail to see that in the real world people really do lose sight of what's really important and get consumed by worldly interests. And Lewis never really condemned her to an eternity of loneliness, to quote the man himself: "The books don't tell us what happened to Susan. She is left alive in this world at the end, having by then turned into a rather silly, conceited young woman. But there's plenty of time for her to mend and perhaps she will get to Aslan's country in the end... in her own way."

Also, after seeing the movie again last night, I realized exactly how BA the minotaurs are.

[Alunissage]

Well, not even just the eternal loneliness, but the trauma of losing your five closest family members at once (and cousin, I guess). With no explanation of "oh, they've all gone to Narnia" or whatnot, just that they're dead. Like, identify-their-bodies dead. There isn't much from that to make a connection to Aslan's land and think oh, that fairy tale we all believed in once, maybe that had something to do with it. Where's that wardrobe again? Unless, of course, the shock makes her entirely retreat from "reality".

[Old Jericho]

True, true, Susan did get the short end of the stick there, but if Aslan is God in both Narnia and Earth, than such grief and mourning had a purpose for Susan. People react differently to the death of loved ones, but most often they reexamine their lives and try to weed out the temporal chaff. It can be like a New Year's resolution that actually works. Susan very well could have become bitter and angry (I think Neil Gaiman did a short story about that, it had the oddest, most disturbing ending), but more likely she turned to focus not on commercial and urbane interests, but eternal ones, such as Aslan (or, dare I say so, Aslan's "another name"). Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that while the death of her entire family no doubt absolutely sucked for Susan, it played a role in possibly redirecting her interests to the real.

Whatever. I like to ramble.

[phyco126]

Wait, I thought that Aslan was supposed to be Jesus, and the emperor over all the land in Narnia and beyond was god? Thus the symbolic sacrifice of Aslan in the first movie.

[GhaleonOne]

Yes, that's correct, but if you believe in Christian doctrine, Jesus is regardless. The best way to describe it, would be to say that Aslan is the Son, and the Emporer Over The Sea who created the Deep Magic is the Father.

[Pisces]

Phyco, in Christian belief (especially described within C.S. Lewis stuff), Jesus is the Son of God, but also God. It's difficult to explain, but C.S. Lewis does a pretty good job of it. The concept of the Trinity is that there is only one God, but He exists in three distinct Persons. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. None of the three Persons came before any of the others, they're all part of the same God. Even though Jesus was when God was made man, the "Son" has always existed as long as the "Father" has. The Son didn't "start to exist" when Jesus was born - that was just when God the Son took fleshly form.

It's sort of like "God" is the "what"...but there are three distinct "whos" within that "what". That's how Lewis describes it, if I remember correctly. It's a very difficult concept for people to grasp, b/c it's so foreign to how we normally think of a "being" or "individual".

Lewis has a really good analogy actually...

Think of when you're imagining an image in your head, say the image of a tree...when you do that, there are two distinct things happening in your mind - the thought in your mind that creates the image, and the projection of that image itself in your mind.

The Father is sort of like the thought, and the Son is like the image itself. Even though the image is made by the original thought, neither one existed before the other - they enter existence simultaneously and cannot be separate, they are part of one another.

As for the Holy Spirit, I recall him stating something to the effect that the Holy Spirit was sort of like the connection and bond that is born, exists, and grows between the original thought and the image. It's the connection itself between the two points.

It was a very intriguing analogy. Very effective.

Anyway, sorry, back to the subject. I went off on a tangent. >.>

[phyco126]

Well, I know about Jesus is God, but I thought that Jesus describes God as another and fatherly. Make sense? I know all about the doctrine, and I can understand it mostly. What throws me is when Jesus describes God as a seperate being that he worships. A bit odd to worship yourself eh?

[Alunissage]

That would be part of why not all forms of Christianity believe that Jesus and God are one. Mine doesn't. G1, Pisces, can you be a little less absolute in saying that "this is what Christians believe" regarding the Trinity? 'Cause not all of us do, and it's a pretty important point.

Although in the context of the thread, it's all about what C. S. Lewis believed, since he would have based Narnia on his own beliefs. Even so, I don't recall anything in the books anywhere suggesting that Aslan and his father were anything but distinct beings.

[LunarRaptor]

I'd have to say I'm somewhere in between the two opinions. I believe God and Jesus are both part of the same God, but yet I believe they are individuals at the same time. Its a weird concept to try to get your head around.

I liked the movie, by the way. I just didn't like it as much as the first one. Now, I adore the books, and the first movie was about 95% true to the original, but did it in a way that was acceptable on all fronts, not just to kids and/or fans of the book.

Priunces Capsian seems to be taking the Peter Jackson approach of keeping it true to the themes, but not so much literally true to the source, scene by scene. On top of that, there were times when I felt they were trying to make it too much like said filmmaker's trilogy, which makes no sense, considering what a hit the previous one was without being like that.

[Old Jericho]

All that I'll say about the Trinity is that you can't explain it well enough without running into heresy.

And yeah, at times the movie did have a LOTR mood to it, but then again, Jackson has pretty much defined modern fantasy cinema, and has set the tone for a good long while.
The river god scene, while very reminiscent of the waterhorses from Fellowship, was kick-a anyway.

[Pisces]

Alun, sorry about the generalization...I was going mainly off CS Lewis's perspective, and I apologize - I shouldn't have made it sound like an all-inclusive thing. As for the books, the quotes I'm making are more from Lewis's non-fiction works like "Mere Christianity", etc. And yes, you're right, the Narnia books make Aslan and the Emperor seem separate. I just wanted to show Lewis's perspective to show why the Narnians revere Aslan as King and trying to point out to Phyco that references of Aslan as "God" as opposed to "Jesus" are also valid points, when these lines aren't so clear.

But in all honestly, Narnia is its own world, and I prefer to view it as metaphor and not allegory. So I don't really like it when people say "Aslan is Jesus" or "Aslan is God" anyway. I realize there are references Aslan makes about the children "finding" him in their own world, etc., but I still think it shouldn't blend into the realm of allegory.

[Alunissage]

Yeah, I agree with you on that. While I was more or less aware of the allegory aspect from the first time I read it, it's never been a big part of the reading for me. I'd rather just enjoy the story. Although the first and last books do kind of clobber you with it, the last one especially. The others are pretty easy to simply read as stories, albeit with moments like Jadis eating the apple and Rilian invoking Aslan's name and such.

[GhaleonOne]

Alun, I hope you take no offense to this, as I mean none, but when you look at the main Christian sects (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy) there's quite a bit of common material in which can be considered "Christian". The idea of the Trinity (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) being three in the power of one is a pretty central and common theme, and for me, it would be hard to consider someone who denies this as being part of the Christian faith.

And yes, I realize there were some groups both before and after the Nicene Creed that went against these basic principles. But if you look Biblically-speaking (and no one can deny the Bible as the main reference for any Christian faith), you're going to have a hard time convincing me that the Scriptures do not state that Jesus was both God and man, and the Son of God. Certainly, you can still have many Christian traits, principles, etc. but you're going away from one of the main cornerstone's of the Christian faith to claim that Jesus and the Father are not one.

In regards to the allegory, even Lewis said it's not allegory... His exact quotes...

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument, then collected information about child psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way. It all began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."

"If Aslan represented the immaterial Deity in the same way in which Giant Despair represents despair, he would be an allegorical figure. In reality however he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, 'What might Christ become like, if there really were a world like Narnia and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?' This is not allegory at all."

And speaking of the Giant Despair, Eric, would you have any suggestions of which of Lewis' non-fiction to read? I've only read Mere Christianity (and not the entire thing), but I've been thinking about reading through some of his other stuff soon.