Forum:Book vs. Movies

There are major differences between the books and their current movie addaptions. What do you think about the differences, good/bad/unnecessary?

I liked the few changes made to LWW, however, I found Prince Caspian not so likeable. The added castle battle was unnecessary, and the Susan/Caspian romance was bad, as was Peter's attitude.

There weren't any changes in LWW that really bugged me, I think all of the worked and helped the story flow better on screen. As a film, I thought PC was better, but only in that isolated aspect. The attack on Miraz's castle may have been unnecessary, but it was wicked cool, so I'd let it slide. The Peter/Caspian power struggle was just stupid and completely contrary to both their characters. The Susan/Caspian thing was lame. There was no point to it, and they didn't even set it up very well.

I agree with Rain.

When I watched PC with one of my younger friends, we talked most of the way through it about how we don't remember the castle attack or that Peter was such an idiot. A rumour I heard was that the changes were made to make it a better video game. It was still a good movie but the books are short enough to keep everything accurate and add more.

What do you think about there being elements of WWII soldiers in Voyage of the Dawn Treader?

Well, the attack on Miraz's castle certainly would make it a better video game. The thing I found with the Chronicles, esp. PC, was that the stories work very well on paper, but when they're adapted to film, they need a little more to make them work on screen. That's probably why they scrunched the beginning together and added stuff to the middle and end. What I really missed about PC was the character of Dr. Cornelius. He was great and contributed a ton to making Caspian the hero we all know and love. In the movie he became a mini Santa Claus who got to shine only twice. First when he had a confrontation with Miraz, and then for a few moments with Caspian before the battle at Aslan's How.

How would they get WWII soldiers into Voyage?

Easily. The beginning, where Lucy and Ed are going to the Scrubb's house, will probably be at a train station. The time in history: the early 1940's (WWII).

Oh, yeah. I didn't think of that b/c the book starts with them already at the Scrubbs' house. In that case, it makes perfect sense to me, they'd just add to the authenticity.

But within the first few paragraphs of VDT it says that the war has been over.

That doesn't ban soldiers from train stations. They still go places even when there isn't a war going on.

And the war couldn't be over: if LWW took place during the blitz (1940-1941), then Voyage would take place in 1943-1944, still during the war.

Maybe, maybe not. If Lewis wants his story to take place after the war, then that's up to him, not us.

True, but I don't see anything about "after the war" in VDT.

I'll see if I can find it again. I might have mistaken what it meant. I think it was about the 6th, give or take, paragraph of chapter 1 where it said something about the war and the Pevensies days at the professor's house...

Either way, it would still be of the period. I don't know why it's necessary, though, to change the way the story begins. I think it works well, almost being thrown in medias res.

I found it. Tell me if I understood it right: "[Peter is working for an exam with the tutoring of] Professor Kirke in whose house these four children had had wonderful adventures long ago in the war years. (middle of paragraph 4)" If I understood it correctly that would mean the voyage started after the war was over.

Lewis' own words and timelines, however, show that to most likly mean "During the Blitzkrieg."