Narnia: Prince Caspian

[Ethrael]

I don't think there's already been a thread for this, if there has, I apologise.

Thoughts and comment here, peeple.

I saw it yesterday, and I'm gonna go see it again tonight. :smalltongue: Nothing to do in Athens. But also because I thought it was pretty good. The best special effects team in the world at work on this movie didn't do badly. The acting was, imo, pretty much better than the first and it makes the first look a bit like a kid's fairy tale by the "darkness" that has been injected into this one. Picture was flawless, yet again, and the action was tense, gripping and perfectly mixing harmoniously with the music.

I do, however, believe there might have been some story-based errors. Not loyalty to the book errors, but movie-based (I haven't read the book :smalleek:).

I believe they left out the whole part about 1 year=1300 years. It might have been just the one I saw, but I doubt it. It felt like there was a chunk missing. Prince Caspian turned from enemy to leader in one un-persuasive tiny speech. They never explained why PC is special, nor how the Penvesie kids knew about him and the whole thing gave a feeling of rushing to the action, of which there was a lot. That was backed up by Aslan just raging to help fight the Telmarines when it wasn't clear what they had done against Narnia herself. They had gotten rid of the Narnians and beaten animals till they don't talk but why were the trees angry? Why did the river attack? You would have thought that Aslan was the wise grandfather who promoted more peace than war. That's the feeling I got from the first film. Also, why did he need Lucy to come find him?

All that might have been explained in the book but from the point of view of someone who hasn't read them then there were flaws.

I also got the feeling that the end made the whole thing look like an "adventure" and the next movie will be their next. A bit more childish than they were going for I think. It also made it more like a TV episode by how much it continued from the first but I don't think that was the moviemakers' fault.

Lastly, could someone explain the Antonio Banderas accents?

But overall, I thought it was pretty good. I liked it and it's shown in the repeating of my viewing. [/English essay style]

[EvilElitest]

i heard it was a giant fantasy fight scene and some really bad thing about it, haven't bothered to watch it myself
from
EE

[Jerthanis]

I wasn't a huge fan of the movie. The plot seemed to just be there as setpieces to drive the characters toward the next fight scene. But by golly jee whillickers, that duel between the two guys in heavy armor was the best shot and choreographed fight scene between two guys in armor ever filmed. I'd watch the whole movie again just for that scene.

[Serenity]

Well, one year doesn't equal 1300 years, except in this one instance. Narnian time is completely unhinged from our time; there is absolutely no constant proportion between how long you spend in our world, and how long it's been in Narnia since last you were there. In this case, they made it clear enough that a long time had passed in Narnia since the Pevensies left, long enough for their castle to be torn to ruins and, as they explicitly state, everyone they knew from the first time, save Aslan, is long dead.

The bit where the Pevensies knew Caspian's name and what he was doing is a plot hole in the movie, though an understandable one to avoid exposition that would move rather too slowly in a movie as compared to the book, where weeks can be compressed into a few sentences. In the book, Caspian had been conducting the war for some weeks before he blew the horn, and Trumpkin was dispatched specifically to search for the Kings and Queens responding to its call. The first scene of the book is the Pevensies being pulled into Narnia from the train station; after they rescue Trumpkin, he relates to them all that had happened with Caspian prior to their arrival.

[Innis Cabal]

There was one, it was locked as it treds closely to....bad territory

[Storm Bringer]

I enjoyed it. L laughed my head off at the stupidity of the commanders in the final battle (seriously, it really was a case of the side that made the fewest mistakes won), but the duel beforehand was indeed very good, and I certianly walked out thinking i'd got my moneys worth, so it's all good.

[Stormthorn]

There was one, it was locked as it treds closely to....bad territory

Hmm...that reminds me. Has anyone here read "The Problem of Susan"?

[WalkingTarget]

Hmm...that reminds me. Has anyone here read "The Problem of Susan"?

The Neil Gaiman story? Yeah.

[Tirian]

Hmm...that reminds me. Has anyone here read "The Problem of Susan"?

I only wish I could unread it. (For the uninitiated, the story contains graphic sexual acts that are contrary to both good taste and C.S. Lewis' characterizations.)

[DraPrime]

I only wish I could unread it. (For the uninitiated, the story contains graphic sexual acts that are contrary to both good taste and C.S. Lewis' characterizations.)

Well now that you explained what it is it's become really tempting.

[Mephibosheth]

I thought the movie was worth it, if only to hear the following exchange:

Prince Caspian: [gives Susan her horn back] Maybe it's time you had this back.
Susan Pevensie: [gives the horn back] Why don't you hold on to it - you might need to call me again.
[a pause while Susan and Caspian exchange a long glance]
Lucy Pevensie: [quoting Susan as they ride off] "You might need to call me again"?
Susan Pevensie: Oh, shut up.

That's right, Susan gave Prince Caspian her phone number, and Lucy calls her out!
Seriously funny:smallbiggrin:

[Tirian]

Knock yourself out. Other than that, it was interesting, and so if someone liked The Chronicles of Narnia, third-wave feminist philosophy, Neil Gaiman, AND hardcore Aslan/White Witch shipping, then this is your story. I only score 75% there and didn't have warning going in to it, so it was a bit hard to read the last page what with my eyes bleeding as heavily as they were.

[Destichado]

Prince Caspian, the book, was somewhat limited in that it was awfully darn short. Reading it as a child it seems tremendously long, but if you're used to tearing through modern fantasy thousand-pagers and go back to Narnia, the books are... brief.
And it's hampered by the fact that, from a movie-maker's standpoint, virtually the entire first half of the book deals with characters we've never seen before even mentioning the existence of "the main characters". And virtually as soon as they're introduced, they're thrust into the main climactic battle -and that's just no way to make a movie. Thus, "decisions were made."

Most of the early interplay between Caspian and Prof. Cornelius was cut out to hasten the introduction of the Pevensies, and Caspian was aged about 10 years to make it more believable that the prince could be both a threat to his uncle and an acceptable leader to a nation full of backbiting schemers. Most of the rest was added to fill time, and make it seem like the royals were capable of doing a little more than sitting around waiting for God to show up and fix things for them. The result, I thought, was a very acceptable movie that never guilty of raping the book.



Additionally... for those who care about these things; in terms of realism, accuracy and swordsmanship, Peter's duel with Miraz is now THE finest, fully armoured swordfight in movie history, period. It is without parallel. Finally, a swordfight where they use shields correctly!
I thought it couldn't get any better than Lancelot vs. Arthur in Richard Tayler's 1952 "Knights of The Round Table" (unfortunately that one isn't up on youtube. Have Lancelot vs Mordred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhhIrmTz5A) instead), but the duel in Prince Caspian blows it out of the water. I think I had an armor-gasm when Peter blocked a sword with his vambrace. :smallwink:

[Stormthorn]

I think I had an armor-gasm when Peter blocked a sword with his vambrace

Hot weapon-on-forarm-guard action?

[Destichado]

Gets me every time. I'm a fan of shield-on-shield, too. :smallamused:

[chiasaur11]

Gets me every time. I'm a fan of shield-on-shield, too. :smallamused:

Ah, the kinky stuff, eh?
I may happen to know a guy who can supply what you want, if you know what I mean...

But you didn't hear it from me.

[Rare Pink Leech]

I thought the movie was worth it, if only to hear the following exchange:

Prince Caspian: [gives Susan her horn back] Maybe it's time you had this back.
Susan Pevensie: [gives the horn back] Why don't you hold on to it - you might need to call me again.
[a pause while Susan and Caspian exchange a long glance]
Lucy Pevensie: [quoting Susan as they ride off] "You might need to call me again"?
Susan Pevensie: Oh, shut up.

That's right, Susan gave Prince Caspian her phone number, and Lucy calls her out!
Seriously funny:smallbiggrin:

I thought the movie was okay. Nothing spectacular, and not necessarily one I'll want to see again anytime soon, but it was a pretty good time waster. Although I got more enjoyment making dirty jokes with my cousin about what the characters were doing ... the scene spoilered above was a particularly good one for us.


Additionally... for those who care about these things; in terms of realism, accuracy and swordsmanship, Peter's duel with Miraz is now THE finest, fully armoured swordfight in movie history, period. It is without parallel. Finally, a swordfight where they use shields correctly!
I thought it couldn't get any better than Lancelot vs. Arthur in Richard Tayler's 1952 "Knights of The Round Table" (unfortunately that one isn't up on youtube. Have Lancelot vs Mordred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhhIrmTz5A) instead), but the duel in Prince Caspian blows it out of the water. I think I had an armor-gasm when Peter blocked a sword with his vambrace. :smallwink:

This, for me, was by far the most enjoyable part of the movie.

[musicfreak313]

I so wanted to watch this movie. I'm renting it though. I have a habit to watch a movie during it's opening week, if not rent it. Unless my friends are willing to pay for my free ticket lol.

[Swordguy]

Additionally... for those who care about these things; in terms of realism, accuracy and swordsmanship, Peter's duel with Miraz is now THE finest, fully armoured swordfight in movie history, period. It is without parallel. Finally, a swordfight where they use shields correctly!
I thought it couldn't get any better than Lancelot vs. Arthur in Richard Tayler's 1952 "Knights of The Round Table" (unfortunately that one isn't up on youtube. Have Lancelot vs Mordred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhhIrmTz5A) instead), but the duel in Prince Caspian blows it out of the water. I think I had an armor-gasm when Peter blocked a sword with his vambrace. :smallwink:

As a fight director, let me say: this. Many, many times over...THIS.

I went back to the theatre with a whole bunch of other SAFD (Society of American Fight Directors) people JUST so we could watch that particular scene again - I can't wait to get it on dvd to deconstruct it.

[13_CBS]

As a fight director, let me say: this. Many, many times over...THIS.

I went back to the theatre with a whole bunch of other SAFD (Society of American Fight Directors) people JUST so we could watch that particular scene again - I can't wait to get it on dvd to deconstruct it.

Except for maybe the very beginning of the fight, when Peter runs up a chunk of ruin to do a "death from above". I haven't heard of anything like that in historical martial arts manuals...

[Swordguy]

Except for maybe the very beginning of the fight, when Peter runs up a chunk of ruin to do a "death from above". I haven't heard of anything like that in historical martial arts manuals...

Lichtenauer. Fight in the Vor (the "now"). Seize the initiative by making attacks that your opponent MUST fully defend against (a defense that occupies all of their effort, so they can't countercut your blow). The "death from above" is a very powerful strike that very well might defeat Miraz's armor, so Miraz MUST defend against it, as opposed to many other attacks in the fights that are defeated by the armor. Forcing Miraz to think "defense first" wrong-foots him and puts him on the overall defensive - reacting to Peter's followup blows.

It's not the "move" of jumping off a rock in an attack - it's the mindset behind it. Always attack, even while defending. Seize the initiative, make your opponent react to you.

[Destichado]

Talhoffer recommends it highly, too, in order to confuse your opponent by giving him such a big target that he won't know what to do with it. <_<

*cough* :smalltongue:

But seriously, no one ever expects it. Right?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/Destichado/Davejump.jpg

[Swordguy]

Talhoffer recommends it highly, too, in order to confuse your opponent by giving him such a big target that he won't know what to do with it. <_<

*cough* :smalltongue:

But seriously, no one ever expects it. Right?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v696/Destichado/Davejump.jpg

That picture...it is the very embodiment of awesome. I wish I had thought of it when I jousted at ORen.

[EvilElitest]

saw that fight clip, the fight itself was very good, but peter is an awful actor in terms of voice acting however
from
EE

[Construct]

(unfortunately that one isn't up on youtube. Have Lancelot vs Mordred (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhhIrmTz5A) instead)

Me is sad. =( They were fighting like they were exhausted from the get go, and the telegraphing, oh my! Now, the horse, of course, was awesome sauce. =)

I take it the fight scenes in Prince Caspian are a touch better than in the first movie, then? =) I recently read "The Crafting of Narnia: The Art, Creatures and Weapons from Weta Workshop" - highly recommended; not at all like the screeds of drivel that accompanied Bored of the Rings - and I still can't believe they spent that much effort designing and making the props. Or why they bothered. =p But those pictures of Miraz's armour; damn, but I needed some 'me' time after looking at those. =)

[Destichado]

Me is sad. =( They were fighting like they were exhausted from the get go, and the telegraphing, oh my! Now, the horse, of course, was awesome sauce. =)


Uh... Have you ever fought in armour before?

[two_fishes]

I only wish I could unread it. (For the uninitiated, the story contains graphic sexual acts that are contrary to both good taste and C.S. Lewis' characterizations.)

This made me curious, I just sought it out and read it. This is a very good story. I think you are grossly misrepresenting it.

I don't think the scenes are contrary to good taste. It's an adult story and I don't mean that in the sense of "the adult movie industry." I mean it explores adult perspectives, adult motivations, adult experiences, and adult characterizations. The sexual references in the story are not in any way lewd or gratuitous. They provide vital insight into the characters and ideas they are exploring.

As for whether they are contrary to C.S. Lewis's characterizations, well, he was writing stories about children and for children. This is a story about adult and for adults, so I'm not sure the comparison at all applies.

It's really a very good little story and worthy of some thought. It's complex and tightly knit, and in a short space explores fascinating ideas and a very valid critical response to the Narnia chronicles. I think I should read it again and let it roll around in my head a little.

P.S.
I found it here:
The Problem of Susan, by Neil Gaiman (http://www.impalapublications.com/blog/index.php?/archives/2396-The-Problem-of-Susan,-by-Neil-Gaiman.html)

[Destichado]

I think you are grossly misrepresenting it.
No, he's not.

But, once again, the internet's warning labels apply. :smallannoyed:

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/cracked/jp/net05.gif

AND you added a link. Wonderful.

[two_fishes]

No, he's not.

But, once again, the internet's warning labels apply. :smallannoyed:

http://cdn-i.dmdentertainment.com/cracked/jp/net05.gif

Whatever. This story is a long way from pornography. The (very brief) depiction of sex between Aslan and the White Witch in the story is not titillating or arousing. In fact, it's horrific, and intentionally horrific in that it occurs in nightmare dream sequence. I stand by my original statement. This a story about adults for adults. Sexuality, mortality and loss of innocence is a part of adulthood.


AND you added a link. Wonderful.

It's a good story. I want to share.

[Destichado]

It's a grotesque twisting of a morality tale into something entirely different. Saying it's "about adults for adults" is a cop out to justify the content -content, which, I might add, is inappropriate for these boards.

[Sholos]

*****SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!*******



I believe they left out the whole part about 1 year=1300 years. It might have been just the one I saw, but I doubt it. It felt like there was a chunk missing. Prince Caspian turned from enemy to leader in one un-persuasive tiny speech. They never explained why PC is special, nor how the Penvesie kids knew about him and the whole thing gave a feeling of rushing to the action, of which there was a lot.
Cutting stuff from the book.


That was backed up by Aslan just raging to help fight the Telmarines when it wasn't clear what they had done against Narnia herself. They had gotten rid of the Narnians and beaten animals till they don't talk but why were the trees angry?
Basically, the Telmarines are a corrupting influence on the land of Narnia, destroying all that was good and pure about it.


Why did the river attack?
Aslan told him to?


You would have thought that Aslan was the wise grandfather who promoted more peace than war. That's the feeling I got from the first film. Also, why did he need Lucy to come find him?
Here we get very close to banned-subject territory, so I'll give my interpretation of these plot elements only, though some background information is necessary to understand my position.

C. S. Lewis wrote these books as allegory. Specifically, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe was written as an allegory to the Christ story. If you know the story, the parallels become very, very obvious. As such, all of the other books are also written with heavy Christian allegorical references. One of these is that Aslan is Jesus. As such, Aslan isn't exactly all that much for confronting evil head-on (evil represented here by the Telmarines). I'm not sure why you thought Aslan was "peaceful" from the first movie. Mr. Beaver flat out states that he's not safe, just good, and he rips the Witch's throat out. Not exactly peaceful.

As to why Lucy had to find him? At this point, no one even believes in Aslan anymore. He's a fairy tale. Lucy is the only one who still believes he'll help out, and even her faith wavers a good deal. Notice how she is easily convinced by the others that she didn't really see Aslan. It's only when they realize that Aslan is their only hope for winning, and Lucy goes off to find him, that Aslan appears. I believe Lewis intended this to represent the tendency of people to try to solve all problems themselves and only turn to God/Aslan as a last resort. He's still there to help, and will, but the whole thing resolves much quicker and more smoothly the sooner he's involved, as shown by Peter's disastrous attack on the castle and the fact that once Aslan comes into the picture things clean up very quickly.


All that might have been explained in the book but from the point of view of someone who hasn't read them then there were flaws.
I'd say there more misunderstandings than flaws. You have to know Lewis' mindset to understand why some things happen.


...

Lastly, could someone explain the Antonio Banderas accents?

Someone saw too much Princess Bride?

[Athaniar]

I liked this film. It stayed faithful to the book, and was overall very good.

[Sholos]

I liked this film. It stayed faithful to the book, and was overall very good.

No, no it didn't. I mean, it did as far as the main plot goes, but there were still several departures from the book. Like Caspian's age, for one.

[Sir_Norbert]

But since when did "faithful" mean "slavishly adherent"? To my simple mind, it means "full of faith". The movie was faithful to the book -- it made changes, but it made intelligent changes, unlike the ghastly LotR films. I wouldn't say it was perfect and I'm sure you could pick faults, but in my opinion it was a d**n good film, and it's not often I say that about one adapted from a book.

[Swordguy]

I think the idea of a "faithful" movie has one ultimate litmus test. Do you think that the original creator of the work would have enjoyed the film, even with the changes therein?

I feel JRRT would have enjoyed most of the films (he would've disliked Faramir's treatment, and lack of the Scouring of the Shire...but the rest I think he would have been fine with), and thus it gets a "mostly passing" grade from me.

I definitely feel that CS Lewis would have enjoyed the two films so far, especially since the vast majority of changes therein were to visually depict events in the book that are summed up in a sentence or two. "They fought all day and into the night" doesn't take up much page space, but it's gonna take a lot of film to show, and NOT showing it flat-out isn't an option in a visual media. These movies get a COMPLETELY PASSING grade from me.

[EvilElitest]

i doubt Tolkien would have liked LOTRS, but htat might be because PJ is an awful director/editer with not taste of subtly. he would hate the elves at helm's deep
from
EE

[Swordguy]

i doubt Tolkien would have liked LOTRS, but htat might be because PJ is an awful director/editer with not taste of subtly. he would hate the elves at helm's deep
from
EE

Honestly, have you read The History of the Lord of the Rings (by Chris Tolkein)? JRRT was far more concerned with themes and macro-scale plotlines rather than smaller details. Why should he hate the elves at Helm's Deep? The elves, at that time, are already marching on Dol Goldur, so it's not that they're holding themselves out of the world. It's not out of character for them.

The details that people get hung up on are simply not the stuff he particuraly cared about. The scene with Boromir on Caradhras when Frodo drops the Ring is precisely the sort of added scene he'd love, because it expands and builds on the characters.

The SPIRIT of the series is still in the movies. That's the important thing. Let the details go, for once.

[Piedmon_Sama]

Honestly I think JRRT would be too busy ****ting himself at the CGI Elephants that weren't even imaginable in the year of his death to be all "but Aragorn was supposed to get the sword at Rivindeeelllll"

Also Prince Caspian is a movie I intend to rent after I finally get around to reading the book. It was one of the ones I skipped when I was a child, unfortunately, and now I've lost all my old Chronicles Books.

[Construct]

Uh... Have you ever fought in armour before?

No, but you misunderstand me; it is the technique, not the movement, that speaks of exhaustion, of energy conservation and dulled wits. The movement I have no issue with. Mordred has a shield yet makes no attempt to attack the legs? He half-swords not by thrusting but by holding it rigid and running past Lancelot (into a cliff no less)? Both men hug their swords to their bodies and make no attempt to strike during the other's wind-up? When the blow is finally delivered it is obligingly directed not at the opponent but at their sword? The fight director meant to show caution between skilled opponents. He meant to delineate the events in the fight story for the audience. He meant to safeguard the actors from harm. But he used old lies to do so, and to one used to the slicker falsehoods of modern cinema it falls flat. The camera shows too much.

[Athaniar]

But since when did "faithful" mean "slavishly adherent"? To my simple mind, it means "full of faith". The movie was faithful to the book -- it made changes, but it made intelligent changes, unlike the ghastly LotR films. I wouldn't say it was perfect and I'm sure you could pick faults, but in my opinion it was a d**n good film, and it's not often I say that about one adapted from a book.

My point exactly.

[rankrath]

No, but you misunderstand me; it is the technique, not the movement, that speaks of exhaustion, of energy conservation and dulled wits. The movement I have no issue with. Mordred has a shield yet makes no attempt to attack the legs? He half-swords not by thrusting but by holding it rigid and running past Lancelot (into a cliff no less)? Both men hug their swords to their bodies and make no attempt to strike during the other's wind-up? When the blow is finally delivered it is obligingly directed not at the opponent but at their sword? The fight director meant to show caution between skilled opponents. He meant to delineate the events in the fight story for the audience. He meant to safeguard the actors from harm. But he used old lies to do so, and to one used to the slicker falsehoods of modern cinema it falls flat. The camera shows too much.

this. In that fight, both sides make tons of mistakes, and show a general lack of skill. Multiple times a sword is over swung, striking the ground, which would be a fatal mistake in almost any real sword fight. In addition to that, neither fighter uses any real armour penetrating technique, such as gripping the sword near the point any thrusting at the visor, or striking the opponent on the head or armour gap with the hilt or pommel. Though they do get major points for ending the fight wrestling with daggers.

PS: this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&feature=related) is the best demonstration of longsword technique I've seen.

[Felixaar]

I liked it, though some of the cliche stuff was taken pretty badly, and I don't think the villains were done very well. Miraz was really the only one who had any character, the rest had roles of sorts but you had no idea who the hell was who cause they all looked exactly the same. There was basically just Miraz and "the General Guy".

I think i said "aww!" atleast twenty times though between Susan/Caspian scenes.

(yeah, I'm a hopeless romantic...)