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."

hmmm... maybe it's a translation difference... that words it differently

Um...it was written in English, they didn't translate it.

Lewis, as the narrator, is telling the story from his perspective. For him, the war has ended, so LWW did take place during the war years, which have finished from his perspective.

What I meant was the different printings... my version has American English spellings while the originals with UK English...

What do you mean by "his perspective" and "for him"?

To Ed: the only differences there are change "ise" to "ize" and that kind of thing, so I don't think that would affect this, but whatever.

To Arvan: In these books, or at least in beginning where he introduces everything, Lewis in and omniscient narrator, he's not writing any character's POV, but from his. Because Voyage was written in 1952, after the war, from Lewis perspective the war is over and it makes perfect sense to him and his readers for him to use the phrase "during the war years" to mean that there was a war on when LWW was going on, but there isn't now.

Yes. But then VDT was during the war years, right? ~Arvan

Sorry, I should have clarified. When I said "now" I meant now for Lewis, the narrator, not now as in the time the book is going on. --Rain

I understand what Rain is trying to say, I think. More years would have gone by for Lewis than for the Pevensies, and it may have just been a little slip.

As far as movie changes go, I had no problems with LWW at all. I loved everything they changed, it all just made it flow together much easier on the screen. I definitely agree with Rain's statement that while all of the Chronicles work exceedingly well on paper, they need a little umph when moved to film. Because of that I didn't mind the castle raid in PC... after I saw it in the theater I went home and looked through the book, and had they not added anything it would not have turned out nearly as well. I also didn't much mind the Susan/Caspian thing... for one, they made Caspian a bit older than he was in the book, so it seemed natural, and for another it was a good way to transition into Peter and Susan being older, and Susan pulling away from adventure and towards romance (lipstick and invitations).

So the only thing I can say they have done that has truthfully bothered me is the Peter/Caspian competition. Totally and completely against Peter's character. I kept waiting for them to resolve it and was waiting for Peter to hand Rhindon over to Caspian before they went back to London, along with something along the lines of a "you're king now" or "i'm sure you'll take good care of it" but no, they didn't even do that.

Much as it irks me, I can't complain if the people who make two of my all time favorite books into movies make one mistake when these days the more likely outcome is to butcher them. =) Queenlucythevaliant 20:58, January 29, 2010 (UTC)