|
|
Post by dinadan on May 17, 2008 7:55:09 GMT -5
My friends, Andrew Adamson's Prince Caspian is abysmal.
First, they have altered the story in such enormous ways (there is now a dead-of-night Old Narnian delta-force-esque strike on Miraz' stronghold! And a romance subplot between SUSAN AND CASPIAN!) that it only bears a cursory resemblance to the book with the same name by C.S. Lewis. Mr. Adamson is apparently not aware, at all, of some of the finer points of Mr. Lewis' brilliant Narnian world; Susan and Lucy do plenty of fighting (and killing!), minotaurs and other baddies fight for Caspian, and the White Witch actually makes a more impressive appearance in the movie than Aslan (you might remember that while she is discussed a couple of times in the book, she never actually appears--well, in Adamson's version, she appears but is never discussed! How's that for post-modern?)
Peter, who throughout all the novels is the level-headed, moral-center character is completed transformed; he's now a sulking, sullen bully who takes multiple opportunities to show what a royal snot (no pun intended) he is. Susan is characterized ok, except that, by totally leaving out the "Follow Lucy to Aslan" substory, where everyone's faith is reaffirmed BEFORE they meet Caspian, you miss out on the very important fact that, other than the dwarf, she's the last person to see Aslan--and, of course, the aforementioned fact that he's got the obvious hots for Caspian--and so it totally misses all that wonderful foreshadowing that Queen Susan becomes an apostate. Edmund is handled well, actually...which was my chief praise of the previous movie. However, by being the only character whose characterization is recognizable in the film, he ends up being the moral-center, good-sense man FOR Peter, often rebuking him for being this weird, Gen-X anti-Peter. With Lucy, it seems that Adamson is wanting to turn her special friendship with Aslan (what most of us consider Lucy's great PIETY) into some sort of quasi-priestessy role where she is the one who intercedes with Aslan for the rest of the movie's characters.
This movie is very dark, and I'm not sure kids ought to see it. Totally absent from the film version is the touch of frivolity that comes when Susan and Lucy (just Lucy in the film, because Susan has been stupid and charming Prince Caspian has to leave the duel being fought for him to come and rescue her on his horse!) meet with Aslan, restoring the dryads and the hamadryads, and the "romp" with Bacchus and the Maenads, the freeing of the rivergod and the rescue of Caspian's Nurse--in short, all the things that make Narnia worth the fighting that the boys are off fighting for. In many cases, it's just violence for its own sake. That's not the kind of books that Jack Lewis wrote, and it's not what I expected from Prince Caspian (which is my second-favorite of all the Narnia books).
I have grave, grave concerns over The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, my favorite of all the Narnia tales.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegid on May 18, 2008 15:49:56 GMT -5
Thanks for the review, [brown]dinadan[/brown]. I saw it last night, and *...sigh...* it did disappoint in several important ways.
Is consolation to be found in the fact that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be in the hands of a different director?
|
|
Caledvwlch
Mabinog
[M:0]
Never Walk Alone
Posts: 166
|
Post by Caledvwlch on May 18, 2008 19:14:57 GMT -5
Well, Dinadan, while I do see your points (and I AM a very avid fan of the Chronicles and know them very well), I would have to disagree on the merits of the movie. I guess I'll give my responses to your charges in the order they're made. 1) The Strike on Miraz's Castle--It heightened the tension in and suspense in a story that was, no offense to Jack, rather unsuspenseful. It seems to me that in the book it's "arrive at castle, wonder what's going on, meet trumpkin, travel through woods, kill bear, travel through woods, get turned back by Telmarine archers, have the string of Aslan-related incidents, end up at Aslans How, events that follow." I realize that this trivializes things and isn't really fair, but the point was that the story drags a bit. The strike adds that suspenseful element, introduces the concept that there is a cost to victory and that the plans of generals can go astray. Heroes aren't always right. On top of that, it was a wicked sweet sequence/battle. Loved Reepicheep. 2) The romantic subplot between Susan and Caspian--I really see no problem with it whatsoever. Though, as you pointed out, Susan remained apostate during her time as queen, that was 1300 years ago. That life happened, and now it's behind her. It didn't change her character. 3) Susan and Lucy fighting--So what? Susan has always been put forward as a "warrior-when-pressed." I think she retains that role, as illustrated with the incident with the bear on the beach. It isn't Susan that kills it, it's Trumpkin. And when she sent Lucy on and stayed behind, it was to protect her sister and not for glory or simple battle-lust. I don't think Lucy did any fighting at all (but correct me if I'm wrong on that, I can't quite remember). 4) The minotaurs--They're never extensively mentioned in any of the books, so it doesn't appear that Jack would have much of an opinion. 5) The appearance of the White Witch. The whole scene in the book with the hag and werewolf and others discusses calling up the old powers, the White Witch in particular. It doesn't seem like that much of a leap to actually call her. I thought it was pretty cool and upped the ante. 6) Peter's character--This one I understand your complaints more than the others. I do think it took his character down a notch, which is very much different from the books. I do, however, very much understand WHY they did it. Perhaps you do too, but I'll lay it out in any case: It introduced the opportunity for the aforementioned introductions of the concepts of the ability of the hero/general to fail, introduces the truth that victory usually has a cost, especially in war, and furthermore it allows for the infighting between him and Caspian. The last, the infighting, does stray from Lewis, but again it ups the ante and makes for more well-rounded characters. Peter must be admitted to being a rather flat character; Edmund and Lucy are the two he really develops. 7) Quasi-priestess role for Lucy--See your point on this one, but think about it: Peter is fighting a duel with Miraz, Edmund is a second for him, Caspian is still dubious about Aslan's existence or intervention. Also remember that Susan goes with Lucy, and it's only because of the pursuit that she stayed behind. Because of the change of timing and putting the talk with Aslan later instead of earlier, the girls are the only ones available. And I think they changed the placement of that for pacing reasons and again to up the suspense.  Flat out disagree with you that Susan was being "stupid" to stand and face the pursuit. It exhibited courage and the willingness to sacrifice herself for her sister and ultimately Narnia. If they had kept riding they would have been cut down. 9) The part with Bacchus and the dryads, the "romp"--this one I'm going to have to take the movie's side on. That whole scenario--be objective here--really has nothing to do with the overall story or plot and has more to do with Lewis getting across his point and what he's trying to say. I don't think it's out of place in the book, but I think (and apparently they did too) that it would be out of place in the movie. Anyway. I have great loves for both writing and film, and I've come to realize they're not interchangeable except on ultra-rare occasions. What works in print very often is unusable in film. Compromise, therefore, is the necessity of crossovers. And ultimately, they're two separate works of art. If you don't like the movie, you still have the book to cherish and love, and the movie is something else. Personally, Caspian was probably my least favorite of all the books, with Voyage, Magician's Nephew, and Horse topping the list. Whatever you do, please don't take this whole post as any sort of criticism of you, any bashing of your opinions; these are just my own views. Let me know what you think. |
|
eugene
Student
Ta aithne nan radaire air radaire eile
Posts: 41
|
Post by eugene on May 19, 2008 15:11:58 GMT -5
My friends, Andrew Adamson's Prince Caspian is abysmal. First, they have altered the story in such enormous ways (there is now a dead-of-night Old Narnian delta-force-esque strike on Miraz' stronghold! And a romance subplot between SUSAN AND CASPIAN!) that it only bears a cursory resemblance to the book with the same name by C.S. Lewis. Mr. Adamson is apparently not aware, at all, of some of the finer points of Mr. Lewis' brilliant Narnian world; Susan and Lucy do plenty of fighting (and killing!), minotaurs and other baddies fight for Caspian, and the White Witch actually makes a more impressive appearance in the movie than Aslan (you might remember that while she is discussed a couple of times in the book, she never actually appears--well, in Adamson's version, she appears but is never discussed! How's that for post-modern?) Peter, who throughout all the novels is the level-headed, moral-center character is completed transformed; he's now a sulking, sullen bully who takes multiple opportunities to show what a royal snot (no pun intended) he is. Susan is characterized ok, except that, by totally leaving out the "Follow Lucy to Aslan" substory, where everyone's faith is reaffirmed BEFORE they meet Caspian, you miss out on the very important fact that, other than the dwarf, she's the last person to see Aslan--and, of course, the aforementioned fact that he's got the obvious hots for Caspian--and so it totally misses all that wonderful foreshadowing that Queen Susan becomes an apostate. Edmund is handled well, actually...which was my chief praise of the previous movie. However, by being the only character whose characterization is recognizable in the film, he ends up being the moral-center, good-sense man FOR Peter, often rebuking him for being this weird, Gen-X anti-Peter. With Lucy, it seems that Adamson is wanting to turn her special friendship with Aslan (what most of us consider Lucy's great PIETY) into some sort of quasi-priestessy role where she is the one who intercedes with Aslan for the rest of the movie's characters. This movie is very dark, and I'm not sure kids ought to see it. Totally absent from the film version is the touch of frivolity that comes when Susan and Lucy (just Lucy in the film, because Susan has been stupid and charming Prince Caspian has to leave the duel being fought for him to come and rescue her on his horse!) meet with Aslan, restoring the dryads and the hamadryads, and the "romp" with Bacchus and the Maenads, the freeing of the rivergod and the rescue of Caspian's Nurse--in short, all the things that make Narnia worth the fighting that the boys are off fighting for. In many cases, it's just violence for its own sake. That's not the kind of books that Jack Lewis wrote, and it's not what I expected from Prince Caspian (which is my second-favorite of all the Narnia books). I have grave, grave concerns over The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, my favorite of all the Narnia tales. dang, I completely missed this section, and made a comment about this movie that shares your sentiments. the movie in of it self, I thought was good, but since I love the stories, I was horrified that it was americanized. strange dichotomy I have here |
|
eugene
Student
Ta aithne nan radaire air radaire eile
Posts: 41
|
Post by eugene on May 19, 2008 15:15:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the review, [brown]dinadan[/brown]. I saw it last night, and *...sigh...* it did disappoint in several important ways. Is consolation to be found in the fact that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be in the hands of a different director? maybe they should have del toro do that after he finishes with the hobbit. too bad there is no lewis family estate to dismiss that jackass like the tolkiens did to peter jackson after tlotr |
|
eugene
Student
Ta aithne nan radaire air radaire eile
Posts: 41
|
Post by eugene on May 19, 2008 15:20:21 GMT -5
Reepicheep is my favorite character in both versions, and leapt for joy when I saw that eddie izzard gave his voice for that. that's exactly how I imagined it. |
|
|
|
Post by Tegid on May 19, 2008 16:05:17 GMT -5
Is consolation to be found in the fact that The Voyage of the Dawn Treader will be in the hands of a different director? maybe they should have del toro do that after he finishes with the hobbit. too bad there is no lewis family estate to dismiss that jackass like the tolkiens did to peter jackson after tlotr The new director will be Michael Apted ( Coal Miner's Daughter, Gorky Park, Gorillas in the Mist, The World is Not Enough, Amazing Grace, et alia). Don't make the mistake of thinking there is no Lewis Estate watchdog. Just try publishing a paper that includes "Eustace" and "Scrubb" and "deserved," and see how fast they contact you. Lewis' stepson, Douglas Gresham, is very much involved in this whole affair, and he's been co-producer of both of the released films. Prince Caspian is released with his imprimatur, so to speak. His publicly announced view of the book is that it is a poorer story in the Narnia series, "basically about a long walk in the woods with a battle at the end" which, as a movie, wouldn't work. *shakes head* |
|
|
|
Post by Dred on May 19, 2008 17:14:58 GMT -5
I haven't seen the movie yet but I think it is safe to say what has already been voiced here and that is books don't always lend themselves to movies in a word for word style. Creative freedom is taken to differing lengths depending on the involvement of the original author or author's estate. In some cases, if a movie was made pure to a book, it would make for a bad movie for generating box office revenues. I'm not saying an excess of freedom should be taken by the producers but they are trying to tell a story that will sell to the masses all the while trying to hold as true as they feel they can to what the author put to paper.
It is a delicate balance and I think there are authors who won't have their books made into movies because they don't want their works remade to the extent that many of the messages are lost.
|
|
eugene
Student
Ta aithne nan radaire air radaire eile
Posts: 41
|
Post by eugene on May 20, 2008 8:11:48 GMT -5
maybe they should have del toro do that after he finishes with the hobbit. too bad there is no lewis family estate to dismiss that jackass like the tolkiens did to peter jackson after tlotr The new director will be Michael Apted ( Coal Miner's Daughter, Gorky Park, Gorillas in the Mist, The World is Not Enough, Amazing Grace, et alia). Don't make the mistake of thinking there is no Lewis Estate watchdog. Just try publishing a paper that includes "Eustace" and "Scrubb" and "deserved," and see how fast they contact you. Lewis' stepson, Douglas Gresham, is very much involved in this whole affair, and he's been co-producer of both of the released films. Prince Caspian is released with his imprimatur, so to speak. His publicly announced view of the book is that it is a poorer story in the Narnia series, "basically about a long walk in the woods with a battle at the end" which, as a movie, wouldn't work. *shakes head* ingratitude of the highest mark. I had the same reaction with the recent installment of the time machine, and wells' great-great nephew(or someting to that effect) was right there overseeing that wretched destruction  |
|
|
|
Post by CynanMachae on Jun 16, 2008 12:55:21 GMT -5
I have grave, grave concerns over The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, my favorite of all the Narnia tales. I don't know, Dinadan. I agree with your review, but it wouldn't hurt to be more optimistic about Dawn Treader. As Tegid said, the new director is going to be taking over things, and (in my humble opinion) Dawn Treader is more "movie-friendly" than Caspian. |
|
|
|
Post by Tegid on Jan 8, 2009 21:37:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Dred on Jan 12, 2009 11:32:38 GMT -5
I just saw this over the New Year and I have to admit to not having read the book in probably 20 years so I don't really remember much at all about it. I think I'll have to reread the book before voicing my own thoughts about the comparison between the movie and the book.
I do hope they'll actually make the next movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tegid on Jan 29, 2009 12:40:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmojo on Jan 29, 2009 12:45:27 GMT -5
I'm happy and worried at the same time. I don't really trust Fox. They ruined X-Men by basically running off Bryan Singer after X-2. They killed Firefly - my favorite TV show of all time - because they didn't understand it. I hope they get this right. |
|
|
|
Post by mcmojo on Jan 29, 2009 12:55:43 GMT -5
I’m going to have to agree with Caledvwich on this one.
The more I think about the film, the more I like it. If you are a die hard fan of the book and are unable to view the film as something seperate, then this film will bother you in many ways. They move events around, they change character's personalities and they alter motivations. For some reason, I was able to view the film without those things really affecting my appreciation for what the filmmakers actually accomplished.
The story is much more streamlined and action driven than the book. The filmmakers take considerable liberties with the storyline and in many cases made the film more engaging and moving. I've never felt that the book had much emotional power - not like some of the other books in the series. It is a good story, but it lacked the heart of some of the better stories in the Narnia tales. Adamson and company pulled out all the stops in ramping up conflict, tension and suspense, but they didn't forget to infuse the story with heart and passion. I was moved many times by events on screen. There is a small sequence toward the end of the film where a few character bow before Aslan - that scene is partially in the book, but it does not play as powerfully or as well as it did in the film.
The acting is very good across the board. There are a few moments that the children do seem like child actors, but those are very few and do not hurt the overall quality of the acting. Peter Dinklage brings a lot of humor, wit and grumpiness to the role of Trumpkin.
I think the spiritual content in the film was more subtle but possibly more powerful than it's predecessor. LWW had the death, burial and resurrection story, and that is hard to top. But Caspian gives us a story about faith. Every important character is tested in their devotion to Aslan. The White Witch scene is more powerful than in the book and the resolution is intense and impressive, both on a spiritual level but also on a visual level. The image of Aslan appearing behind the curtain of ice is immediately affecting and inspiring. While Aslan is not in the film much, his presences permeates everything that happens in this film and I honestly feel that he comes across as more powerful than he did in the first fim.
The action sequences are a huge step forward and it is obvious that Adamson learned quite a bit from his first attempt at live action. He applied all of that to the action sequences in this film and the results are awesome. There are some really cool moments for each of the main characters and the side characters are given some really amazing looking stunts as well.
As it stands, this is the by far a better film than LWW and it ranks up there with some of the best films in the fantasy genre. It does not achieve the greatness of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it is as good or better than just about anything else.
|
|
