Posted by: @pete

So is this just my opinion or did they take away or downplay these characteristics - if so, why?  

I don't think it's necessarily the case that they took away these aspects, more so that they wanted to add other stuff in - particularly in the case of Peter and Caspian, it's that they wanted every character to have a well defined character arc in which they learned to overcome a particular character fault through a journey of self-discovery.

As for why: the answer to that can probably be found in the screenwriting philosophy of Markus & McFeeley. If you watch the interview below for example, they refer to their approach to screenwriting as "extreme structuralism" or something similar - in essence meaning that they try to adhere to strict 3-act plot structures with well defined character arcs playing out across the narrative.

https://youtu.be/XNXc34NKsT0?si=TJKUCSFduGM9fthu

As for why Andrew Adamson picked them for LWW in the first place, I imagine he probably felt that their structuralist approach would help turn the often unwieldy and "non-schematic" (to quote Greta Gerwig) structure of the books into something that would fit better with traditional blockbuster sensibilities. Which too be fair, I think they were probably quite successful at. 

I did this really long series on my blog about the Narnia movies and here's what I wrote about the character changes you mentioned. Sorry it's so long and hope it makes up for it by being interesting.

On Changes to Peter's character in LWW

 This is probably the biggest change the movie makes to the book’s story. The literary Pevensies never really express any enthusiasm about being the ones to save Narnia, but they don’t really question why it should be them or try to back out of it either. Truth be told from here on in the book, Lewis treats Peter, Susan and Lucy like chess pieces and doesn’t give them much in the way of inner lives. That never bugs me when I read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobebut I can theoretically understand the screenwriters feeling like it was a flaw. I wouldn’t say the fairly standard reluctant hero arc they gave the characters, mainly Peter, was necessarily the best or the only way to fix that though. Still, it’s not a bad standard reluctant hero arc either. Some of it is quite touching.^[11] Peter and Susan are a lot more likeable here than some reluctant heroes. They don’t act annoyed by the beavers or anything^[12] and since they don’t have any obvious superpowers, it makes perfect sense that they wouldn’t believe they could help save Narnia.

I also don’t feel like Peter’s feelings of fear and uncertainty in the movie are that much of a stretch from the book’s character. When he’s called upon to rescue one of his sisters in a later scene, Lewis writes that “Peter did not feel very brave; indeed, he felt he was going to be sick. But that made no difference to what he had to do.” Doing the brave and honorable thing despite fear is a minor theme in the book, as we saw earlier with the Pevensies deciding whether to try to help Tumnus or go back to their own world, one on which the movie expands, not something it pulls out of nowhere. It’s also worth noting that other good kings in the Narnia books express a sense of unworthiness when offered the role so this really doesn’t feel untrue to the books’ portrayal of leadership to me. And Lucy being the only sibling to instantly accept the Call to Adventure feels true to her role in the books too.

It’s possible, maybe even likely, that part of the motivation for this change on the part of the filmmakers is that they weren’t comfortable with the idea of the Pevensies deserving the roles of kings and queen just by virtue of being human and prophesied and especially with the idea of Peter deserving the role of high king just by virtue of being firstborn. Having the characters themselves question that was a way of making them more relatable from their point of view. You can definitely argue that C. S. Lewis was too enamored of the idea of natural hierarchies himself to convey their romantic appeal to anyone who didn’t already share his feelings.^[13]You can also definitely argue that modern screenwriters are too skeptical about the idea of natural hierarchies and that their fantasies would be better if they just relax and accept them, if only for the sake of their stories. I can see both sides. There’s a school modern criticism that is skeptical of the whole idea of prophesied heroes, seeing them as lazy storytelling. I sympathize with this criticism, but I also think prophesied heroes have a poetic appeal into which both versions ofThe Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the movie and the book, tap.^[14]

While I’ll defend this added character arc on the whole, I have to admit that it comes with some major downsides. Having Peter initially refuse to go to the Stone Table means cutting one of his most memorable lines of dialogue in the book, where he tells the beavers that he’s longing to see Aslan “even if I do feel frightened when it comes to the point.”

On Changes to Peter's Character in PC

Um…yikes! In the literaryPrince Caspian, Peter is a completely noble hero albeit one that makes a major mistake. He’s also a very humble hero and arguably as great a diplomat as he is a warrior. And here the adaptation has him brawling in public like a common hooligan. And it’s implied that this is something he’s been doing regularly for a while. Even if the movie really wanted to include (the fight scene at the bus station) for the sake of more action, it would have been so easy to give Peter a more sympathetic reason for getting into it. He could have been defending a smaller boy against bullies.^[2]We could have at least seen the two boys being really rude to Peter when they bumped into him, so that we’d be more likely to sympathize with him lashing out at them. Either of those ways to make Peter more sympathetic are so obvious that I’m not sure if I’m angry with the movie for not using them or impressed by it avoiding the obvious route.

Perhaps most troublingly for fans of the book, we’ll learn in a matter of seconds that his issues stem from a sense of wounded pride and entitlement. For many fans, this one change to this one character is enough to ruin the adaptation for them. I can understand that if King Peter was a huge role model for you growing up. But while I consider Peter in the book to be admirable and well written, he’s not a particular favorite of mine and while there’s a lot I dislike about the execution of this character arc for him, as well as with William Moseley’s performance, which feels like he’s playing a different character from the likeable one in the last film, there’s also a lot that appeals to me about it conceptually. In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Peter’s journey was all about him learning to have more confidence. I like that this sequel gives him the opposite arc rather than rehashing what we’ve already seen. Also, I don’t really get why so many kids’ movies, like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, feel that the main thing they need to teach their young viewers is to be more confident. Doubtless, there are some children who need to learn that but aren’t there also many-possibly even more-who suffer from overconfidence? Having the protagonist in a mainstream kids’ movie^[3]learn to be humble is an interesting and refreshing move if you ask me and one more in line with the broad themes of the Narnia books.^[4]

...., I kind of admire how seriously the movie takes the character’s flaw of arrogance. It’s pretty typical for Hollywood action heroes to be full of themselves. (Think Robin Hood or Han Solo.) I feel like treating the hero’s pride as a serious vice the way this movie does is somewhat unusual.^[10]

On Changes to Peter and Caspian's Relationship

While Caspian and Peter don’t meet until the book is almost over, they’re relationship is perfectly friendly. When Peter sees that Caspian is overawed by his presence, he addresses him as “Your Majesty” and tells him “I haven’t come to take your place, you know, but to put you into it.” A page or two later, Caspian is described as liking Peter very much. In the movie…not so much. I can’t blame any fans for being upset by this character assassination, but I will defend it a bit. I get the impression from some fan complaints that they feel the movie is changing the themes and messages of the book here. But I feel like the basic message is the same. It’s not like the filmmakers read the book and were like, “Peter is a terrible role model for children! The way he peacefully passes on the mantle to Caspian and supports him is just sick! He should be rude and power hungry! That’s how someone should behave in this situation!” I’d say the movie and the book are sending the same message. It’s just that the book is using a positive example whereas the movie is using a negative one. Of course, if you grew up with High King Peter as your role model, I understand that there’s no way you can ever accept this change. (Personally, I grew up with Polly Plummer fromThe Magician’s Nephewas my Narnian role model because of her talent fortelling the other characters exactly what’s wrong with them. Maybe it’s just as well this series of adaptations never got around to her story.)

I’ve been offering defenses of the way this movie adapts the character of Peter, but (his fight with Caspian after the failed siege at the Telmarine castle) is extremely hard for a book fan to take. It’s such a 180 from Caspian and Peter’s relationship in the text. The way each character goes for the other weakest spot (Caspian by accusing Peter of abandoning Narnia and Peter by badmouthing Caspian’s dead father) is especially brutal. Also, from a purely neutral perspective, putting aside the book, the way Caspian screams at Peter and draws his sword after this is silly. I get that they’re outraged but aren’t they also supposed to be exhausted after the battle?

 .... I actually feel that combining the movie’s story and that of the book would be ideal or would make the most compelling version of Caspian’s character anyway. If he were a High King Peter fanboy since childhood, as in the book, and then became disgusted by his actions, as in the movie, and realized in the end that the kings and queens of old aren’t perfect but they’re still heroes, meaning that his imperfect self could be a hero too, wouldn’t that be more interesting than his arc in either the book or the movie? Of course, I know many fans aren’t going to like any version with the movie’s assassination of Peter’s character. All I can say is that I respect their viewpoint though it isn’t mine.

On Changes to Lord Berne's Character 

In the book, Lord Bern is not a pathetic old prisoner but a free and prosperous man who has settled down on the island of his own free will. He buys Caspian from the slave traders out of compassion and because Caspian reminds him of his old friend, Caspian’s father. I love the irony of the slave traders unknowingly helping Caspian in his quest and bringing about their own destruction by selling him to Bern, so I’m not happy about this alteration.

I never really viewed this change as making Berne a coward though since, well, he's imprisoned and there's not much he can do. 

I think the Pevensies characters could have been made more medieval in the Walden films and especially in the roles of Peter and Edmund. Their characters should have been made more like medieval knights. The actors would have certainly been capable of it, and their talents weren’t used to their fullest abilities. There certainly is good acting in the films mainly by Georgie Henley and Anna Popplewell. But of course there was room for improvement in all three films. Aslan could have been given a more central role as he was presented in the books. The Walden films for the most part kept him in the background.  The BBC series was more like the books in having Aslan in charge even though he appeared only as a puppet. But it was more medieval than the Walden films, and it looked more primitive. The Walden films had more money in their budget and some good actors so there is no reason why the movies couldn’t be more like the books.

I liked the Walden films for their appearance and also for some of the acting, but I think they could have been closer to the books and more chivalrous.  After all, the books are like medieval fairytales, and the movies should reflect that quality. 

@narnian78 The BBC series was more like the books in having Aslan in charge even though he appeared only as a puppet. But it was more medieval than the Walden films, and it looked more primitive. The Walden films had more money in their budget and some good actors so there is no reason why the movies couldn’t be more like the books.

The BBC version of PC was so whittled down that it was barely a prelude to the BBC version of VDT, with only 2 episodes. So, like the Walden version of PC, there wasn't in either version of filming, the long wild romp & joyful procession through Narnia where Aslan led both Susan & Lucy, even though both were dressed for battle in the book form. And that is my biggest regret about that particular film. 

In Walden's Prince Caspian, it seemed like "High King Peter" & "Prince Caspian" were competing against each other, which wasn't in the book, where Peter specifically tells Caspian that he & his siblings weren't there to replace him.

@waggawerewolf27 

Focus on the Family radio dramas did better with Prince Caspian than either Walden or the BBC series. At least they told the complete story of the book with fewer changes.  I don’t know if the BBC could have devoted three hours to Prince Caspian with the small budget that was available, but one hour (two episodes) was not enough to do the book justice. Walden didn’t get the characters of Peter and Caspian exactly right as they are in the book (e.g., they should have been more like a medieval knight and a prince). But the movie was made and now it is too late to change it. I don’t dislike Walden’s Prince Caspian as much as I did at first, but I still wish that it was a better, more faithful adaptation. There are parts of the film that I like such as Aslan’s meeting Lucy in the woods.  It had some fine special effects at the beginning in the transition from our world to Narnia.  The movie seems more watchable to me now than at first.

I bought all three Walden films on Blu-ray, and I cannot say that I wasted my money.  They do offer a lot of entertainment even though they aren’t the perfect Narnia movies. But if you want the real Narnia read the books.  There is no better option than the original stories.  🙂

For Prince Caspian, I think Andrew Adamson wanted to connect to the material personally.  I really think people struggle to adapt Prince Caspian - I love the books, but some of my favorite parts (I.e. Getting lost in overgrown forests, the mystery to do with 'where are the Pevensies when they get back to Narnia) are often reported by many people as being the boring bits of this book.  I could be wrong, but I don't think Andrew Adamson had the same love for this story as he had for The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

In this film, he wanted to explore returning to a place that is no longer the same place as you remember:
Andrew Adamson interview on Prince Caspian  This is not a theme I find in the book.   (I can relate to it, as I have had to return to a number of places where I lived as a child - places that made me who I am - to find that they had changed so much that they no longer exist.)  However, this change does impact the way in which the story is told and is very different to the book.  It does feel a bit to me like someone saying to C.S. Lewis, "You chose to tell this story of kids going back to their home in Narnia 1000 years later! Why didn't you do a psychological analysis on how seeing their familiar world all changed affected them?  That is what I am going to do in my movie."  It's not a bad idea, it is just different to what was in the novels.  I think this comes back to Andrew Adamson wanting to adapt his memory of the books rather than the books themselves (Andrew Adamson filmed his memory of the books).

As to the thinking on changing Peter and Caspian's characters, I think @icarus knocked it out of the park when he said that the writers wanted to give each character an arc.  In Peter's case, they wanted to explore how being a medieval high king and then returning back to childhood in school would affect someone.  This is not something C.S. Lewis wanted to explore in his books.  From the books, the impression I got was that this was a beneficial experience that allowed the kids to live fuller lives in England and to better know Aslan in our world from knowing him in Narnia.  In the movie, the impression I get is that it is, to some degree, irresponsible for Aslan to allow the Pevensies into Narnia only to return them to our world.

There used to be lots of interviews online with the writers and Andrew Adamson about this change.  The only one I could find was this: Prince Caspian: Peter Pevensie's Sacrifice

There is also a dissertation someone wrote (that I found quite interesting) going into a very systematic, detailed analysis on what was changed in Peter's character from the book to the movie: Analysis of how Peter's character was changed in Prince Caspian.  It does not detail why the changes were made, but I thought it provided some good insights.

Andrew Adamson and Douglas Gresham disagreed over whether Susan should fight with her bow and arrows or not.  This does not related directly to the changes for chivalry, but indirectly, I think it shows the differences that may exist between the writers of the movie and C.S. Lewis:
Doug Gresham and Andrew Adamson disagree over Susan and war Andrew Adamson interview - disagreement with Doug half way down this also leads into her role in Prince Caspian as well: Susan doing action in Prince Caspian

Anyways, no conclusions here - just some thoughts.

@davidd Aha, the 'character arc' thing!

Sorry if this post seems off topic, but it may help explain why some of us older members don't 'get' this. 

51 years ago when I was completing my degree in English Literature, we never talked about character arcs, nor did anything have a 3-act structure. (I had been to a very English style girls high school, with plenty of traditional English Lit, and our city and university were very traditional English in lots of ways too).

I'm sure it was the same 20 years earlier, when Lewis was writing his Narnia books. We certainly didn't analyse the long Victorian books in those terms, and characters had development, not arcs. An arc was a term used in electrical work! And a play had 5 acts! 

The writers for the three films were American and modern, trained in film script writing, not plays. I often notice on here that most members have learned about film, watched huge numbers of films, and can discuss and analyse them very well.
If all scriptwriters think and work in 3 acts, writing arcs for their characters, I need to learn and read about it.  I've done a quick search online, and have saved a site to look into. I had thought 'character arc' was a sort of jargon term.  

[Media Studies in high school is relatively new in my country. 25 years ago a friend who taught English at was having to teach Media as well. I thought it was just another side of English, looking at journalism!]

@coracle, I don't think its necessarily true to say that the idea of having a well defined act-structure in a narrative fiction is an inherently modern idea - As far as I understand it, William Shakespeare used a fairly strict 5 act structure formula in all of his plays following the same basic format:

1. Exposition
2. Rising Action
3. Climax
4. Falling Action
5. Resolution.

Equally, the idea of the "Hero's Journey" as being a standardised framework for fiction writing has apparently been around since 1871 and has been applied retrospectively all the way back to antiquity.

There is maybe a case to be made however for the fact that filmmaking in the 1960s and 70s began to develop a language and culture all of its own (branching away from the roots of stage production) and that the development of television as a format created a greater need for screenwriters to understand conventional narrative structures in more detail as a way to quickly generate scripts for 23 episode seasons, for year after year.

Although Markus and McFeely's background isn't in television (they cite most of their core influences as being the aforementioned 1970s era blockbuster directors like Steven Spielberg and George Lucas) i think you can see that televisual influence seeping in with directors like the Russo Brothers (interviewing M&M in the podcast above) who started out working on Community with Dan Harmon (who has an entire "Story Wheel" conceptual framework of his own) and Joss Whedon, who started out on TV shows like Buffy and Firefly, and then went on to direct the first Avengers movie - which actually conforms to the 5 act Shakespearean structure noted above!

Anyway, whilst I do think its fairly easy to look at the Walden movie's penchant for strict narrative formula as being a weakness, I do think its rigid adherence to things like giving every character a well defined character arc, probably helped to make those films more easily accessible to a wider range of people than they might otherwise have been.

So in terms of Markus and McFeely, i really don't think they were trying to "take out" any concepts of respect, honour or chivalry - you only have to look at their characterisation of Captain America across all the Marvel films for evidence; a character who is 100% about duty and selflessness. Therefore they clearly can write earnest portrayals of chivalrous people, but they obviously felt that they needed to add a greater sense of internal conflict to the Narnia characters in order to make it work as a traditional cinematic blockbuster....  maybe we should try and get them on the NW Podcast one day, i'm sure they can explain their logic.

@icarus

I didn't suggest that 5 Acts was new. It goes back to Ancient Greece - I learned that in my University studies. I've studied plenty of Shakespeare, and acted in several of his plays. It was the 3 Act structure that I was interested in.

I have heard of The Hero's Journey as one of the main basic storylines, only this century.  I tried to indicate in my post that a lot of terminology and definition of the later 20th century onwards is led by USA, not UK. 

If you thought my post was criticising those two writers, you misread me. I was stating my understanding that this is how things are done in film now, especially American-led ones. I was indicating that I realised my need to catch up in my understanding. (Whether or not I  liked their scripts for these films is not the issue here).

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and feedback on this thread. I understand the whole character arcs to some degree, and I also understand the whole reluctant hero thing.  In fact, in my opinion I quite liked the version of the reluctant hero that Aragorn was in the Lord of the Rings movies, whilst different from the books, I liked the humility - the recognition that he is in fact no better than his forebears.  That said, in my opinion, I feel the Peter of the Walden Media films, as much as I think Will Mosely did a great job portraying him, I feel like the screen writers made him not just a reluctant hero, but a hero that came kicking and screaming to the table in LWW, and then became a frightful jerk in PC.  I don't think it's so much the fault of Will Mosely as an actor, I think he did at times a great job, I'm landing this one squarely at the feet of the screenwriters.  And yes, I admit, I am a bit opinionated about it - Afterall, as I'm a Peter myself, he is my namesake and as a kid, I appreciated him for that reason as well as he seemed to be a big brother sort of person (when I saw the BBC productions portrayed).

I guess I just feel they could have done the reluctant hero in a similar way to what was done in the Lord of the Rings movies - whilst still keeping in the character of the book.