I expect that Caspian, who never learned what his father was really like, would indeed have terrible nightmares about what his father thinks of him and the way he rules.

That is really the heart of the matter. It is similar to faith and doubt. We all have strong faith. But doubt occasionally creeps into the mind.

Yes, you are right, rjefvh. It does come down to faith and doubt. You can only believe. Or not.

We don't know why Miraz chose to kill his elder brother, either from the book or from the movie PC.

But they don't need to tell us, why else do you kill a king a try to become king yourself, he was power-hungry. That is nothing new, there are many, many of examples of such things happening all through history.

True. And fratricide (killing one's brother) is always wrong. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't have been other reasons why Miraz would kill Caspian IX. Edmund and Caspian, significantly end up agreeing that they are like brothers. The Pevensies are like the family Caspian never had.

It was a lvoely idea, but as with a lot of this movie the way it was executed does not do it credit, it feels sorely underdeveloped, and thus it's resolution feels hollow

It didn't make sense at all to me in the movie. At the beginning of the film, Caspian proudly tells the Pevensies about all the accomplishments he has done, and how he has managed to bring peace to the entire surrounding continent in just 3 years. Then he inexplicably feels like his father isn't satisfied with him and he's a horrible king until Aslan changes his mind at the World's End.

I'd agree with both sentiments on that. I liked the idea in principle, and it was an interesting idea for them to explore, but ultimately the entire thing was let down because they failed to correctly set things up at the start of the movie (as RoseRed said, that is something rather symptomatic of the entire film). I feel that if they had simply built on the earlier moment which MinotaurForAslan mentioned, they could easily have conveyed that even in spite of his achievements so far as King, that Caspian still had a lot of self-doubt about whether or not his father would of been proud of him - but they didn't.

In fact, if they had kept a stronger sense of focus on the initial purpose of the mission (simply to find the Seven Lost Lords) they could of made Caspian's constant desire to prove himself part of a very strong central narrative - that it was his desire to gain the approval of his father that was pushing him onwards to find the Lords as a way of making amends (and not a simply matter of necessity to defeat the Green Mist). If put in that context, the final scene with Caspian at the Worlds End could have been a very powerful and symbolic moment - but as it was it was merely a nice little moment, but not a particularly deep or significant one.

I also agree that it should have been set up more.

Because as it is, I didnt feel Caspian's pain when his father said he was dissapointed in him. In fact, I kept thinking "This is nothing like the horrific nightmares I imagined. I don't care about Caspian's daddy issues!"

Because as it is, I didnt feel Caspian's pain when his father said he was dissapointed in him. In fact, I kept thinking "This is nothing like the horrific nightmares I imagined. I don't care about Caspian's daddy issues!"

'xactly. It feels more like an unnecessary addition, something to emphasize the "you're all about to be tested" thingy.

In fact, if they had kept a stronger sense of focus on the initial purpose of the mission (simply to find the Seven Lost Lords) they could of made Caspian's constant desire to prove himself part of a very strong central narrative - that it was his desire to gain the approval of his father that was pushing him onwards to find the Lords as a way of making amends (and not a simply matter of necessity to defeat the Green Mist).

There wasn't any need for Caspian to doubt himself or worry about what his father might have thought or for him to worry about any green mists until he met in prison Lord Bern who explained everything to him. That it was either being enslaved or being sent to some sort of Hell in a handbasket. Which is precisely what happened to the Lone Islands up to that point. It went to Hell in a handbasket, even though, it, too, was a part of the Narnian realm. As Edmund and Lucy could and did remind Caspian. Even to some extent in the book.

I am reminded of the discussions in the N & C forum about the Voyage of the Dawn Treader and the Seven Deadly Sins. I have long thought there was a correlation between the Seven Deadly Sins and the Seven Lords, so thought it logical that Lord Bern's role was so repentant a figure, saying that he had failed. And having had the same sort of nightmares that Caspian had, I wouldn't be so ready to dismiss such nightmares as being not so very terrible. Parental disapproval can be very soul destroying.

There wasn't any need for Caspian to doubt himself or worry about what his father might have thought or for him to worry about any green mists until he met in prison Lord Bern who explained everything to him...

That too would be an equally valid suggestion for how the plot line could of developed - i.e. that Caspian did not begin to doubt himself until he saw how badly things had gone in the Lone Islands, and that he felt guilty for allowing such things to happen under his rule - however, it's still not really a concept that was present in the movie. You could perhaps read such a scenario into things if you tried hard enough, but i think that would be stretching it a little bit. For me that whole character arc didn't have anywhere near that sort of depth to it in terms of giving it a solid basis or origin, but like i said, on the whole i liked it - it was a nice little touch if nothing more.

Just saw the movie!!!!!!!!!! I think the character arc was good. I think it was well handled. It didn't beat you over the head but you got the picture. I think it was very believable. I can see that being a fear of Caspian's.

Okay, this whole added aspect was unneeded and way underdeveloped. I wasn't even sure why Caspian's Father couldn't have started a revolution with the Narnians like Caspian had done if he was actually a good king.

Why is it that if C.S. Lewis leaves something up to the imagination we call it brilliant and mysterious but if the filmmakers do the very same thing we call it underdeveloped Just a thought.

We don't know much about Caspian IX, in the books or the films, or the events surrounding his death. It's possible he was considering a revolution like that of Caspian X. Maybe Miraz killed him before he could go through with it. That was almost implied by Caspian's line at the end of the world when he said it would be wrong of him to abandon what his father died for. Maybe I'm reading too much into that line but that's kind of what it sounds like to me.

At any rate, I wouldn't call it underdeveloped, just mysterious. Go write a fan fiction about it. That would be fun!

Caspian's choice regarding his father at the world's end caught me completely off guard. His father is only mentioned once or twice before that. I don't see why that bit was needed at all. And then it gets worse: He has to spell out exactly what he learned because it does not come through in the story at all.

If they had set up Caspian and his father throughout the film, this could have potentially been a good arc.

Why is it that if C.S. Lewis leaves something up to the imagination we call it brilliant and mysterious but if the filmmakers do the very same thing we call it underdeveloped Just a thought.

Not a fair comparison at all. Caspian's father is not mentioned in the book at all because he is not an important part of the story or Caspian's character arc. For some reason, the filmmakers added a scene at the end where Caspian has to make an apparently difficult choice regarding his father. The burden is on the filmmakers to set that up properly because they made the choice to add that scene. Lewis doesn't say anything about Caspian's father so there is no need for him to set it up.

I wasn't talking about Lewis in that one instant when I posed my question. I wasn't speaking solely about Caspian's father then. I was speaking about all things Lewis chose not to elaborate on. We call those things mysterious. The filmmakers did kinda the same thing with Caspian's father. And we call it underdeveloped.

I saw the Caspian's father thing being set up but perhaps that was because I was already looking for it. At any rate, I don't see any need to explain why that was a difficult choice to make. Obviously Caspian would kinda miss his dad. It's what comes naturally when you lose someone close to you. It just makes sense to me that he would want to know if his father is in Aslan's Country and that he would want to be with his father.

It makes sense that Caspian has some leftover insecurities. That was hinted at in the movie as well. There was no need to blow it up and spend half the film on that character arc because we already knew he had insecurities in PC. All we needed was maybe a line here or there to let us know, ok he still has some leftover insecurities.

For me, if you take into account Caspian in PC and Caspian in VDT then the character arc is complete and there isn't any further need for explanaition. Caspian's arc wasn't like Lucy's arc where it was a completely new thing. Caspian's arc was more like a continuantion of his arc in PC. He was still learning to get comfortable in his own skin as a king and he was still kinda getting over losing his father, which makes perfect sense to me.

I am really sorry the movie disappointed you, gP. I hope they make The Silver Chair and make it to your satisfaction

Why is it that if C.S. Lewis leaves something up to the imagination we call it brilliant and mysterious but if the filmmakers do the very same thing we call it underdeveloped Just a thought.

We don't know much about Caspian IX, in the books or the films, or the events surrounding his death. It's possible he was considering a revolution like that of Caspian X. Maybe Miraz killed him before he could go through with it. That was almost implied by Caspian's line at the end of the world when he said it would be wrong of him to abandon what his father died for. Maybe I'm reading too much into that line but that's kind of what it sounds like to me.

At any rate, I wouldn't call it underdeveloped, just mysterious. Go write a fan fiction about it. That would be fun!

Thank you! I agree with you. I'd also like to ask why are there complaints about underdeveloped information if a film doesn't say much more about Caspian's father than Lewis does himself, and just as illogical complaints about a particularly hard to visualise theme Lewis says heaps about, not only in VDT.

I think that it is more than likely that Caspian IX was a bit too pro-Old Narnia for Miraz's liking, judging by hints and clues scattered throughout PC, in particular. Not that it ever justified Miraz' killing his brother and seizing the throne for himself. Don't forget that PC has already been filmed in what is likely to be the best production possible for that particular Narnia book. Much of the explanation for Caspian's father issues are already there, having been mentioned quite thoroughly in that film, which starts with Caspian fleeing for his life because of new-born Miraz Junior. Caspian ruined the night raid, remember, because of his 'daddy issues', having first learned that it was Miraz who killed Caspian IX. And then there is Dr Cornelius telling Caspian about his own mixed ancestry just before the arrival of the Telmarine Army at Aslan's How.

However, the film PC doesn't mention other bits of information from the book PC that would have supported that sort conflict being between the two brothers. Dr Cornelius told Caspian that his mother was 'the only Telmarine who was ever kind to me'. Caspian's nurse who told Caspian stories about Old Narnia was surely not a Miraz appointee, and Dr Cornelius also mentioned that Caspian was scarcely the only Telmarine who wanted reconciliation with the Narnia of the past. Lastly, there was no lead-in mention in PC the film that mentioned the seven Lords leaving Narnia because they were Caspian IX's friends, not merely that alone of the Telmarines they did not fear the sea.

Caspian's father is not mentioned in the book at all because he is not an important part of the story or Caspian's character arc.

No, sorry, Caspian IX is being mentioned all the time, not only in PC. I think that Caspian's 'daddy issues' were there all along, over the entire character arc, crossing all three books and any movies made of the Caspian trilogy. The Seven Lords, after all, were Caspian IX's friends, not Miraz's. That it didn't seem to matter before Caspian reached the Lone Islands is merely an illusion. Those issues were there all the time, re-emerging as issues at stressful times, such as in the Miraz duel, at the end of PC, meeting Lord Bern, at Goldwater Island, at Dark Island and finally at meeting Aslan, and in Aslan's presence, his final decision that his father would not regard him very highly if he did not go back to rule Narnia. Even Eustace nastily referring to his Pevensie cousins as 'orphans' is an excellent lead up to meeting King Caspian, who started out as the real orphan. Yes, he (and the film) did do well up to the point of meeting Lord Bern, who knew his father and who greets him as his father's son.

One thing I think is a real strength of both the PC and VDT films is the use of the one actor to play Caspian throughout these two films, in contrast to the BBC versions, which should have kept Samuel West for the finish of BBC Silver Chair. I like Ben Barnes as Caspian. The boy who played Caspian in BBC PC and at the end of BBC SC was far too young to play Caspian convincingly throughout the series, and Samuel West suggested a more bad-tempered, more capricious Miraz-like Caspian.

I don't know which actor did the two scenes of Caspian as an old man boarding the ship, dying at the end, or in the flashbacks that are in the BBC version of Silver Chair. But if Silver Chair gets made in the near future, after all, I can see that Ben Barnes would continue to portray Caspian as the dutiful Narnian king Lewis portrayed in these three books. I can also see that Aslan would be portrayed as being just as unwilling to accept extenuating excuses and self-justification for bad behaviour in Silver Chair as he is portrayed in the books and in particular in this version of VDT as he is in the books.

I'm sorry glumPuddle that you disliked the movie so much, but am also wondering if you, like myself, had spent too much time on these boards examining the filmmaking so minutely that objectively it ruined any enjoyment you could have got out of it. I'm not saying that participating on this board isn't fun, and that it isn't therapeutic to be able to discuss movies you have seen as well as simply view them.

I liked the addition. I thought it was believable, and I thought Caspian's Edge of the World moment was pretty good - for a replacement of his more canon hissy fit!

I didn't have a problem with the Caspian's Father plot line, although it did seem to come out of nowhere. I wish there was something about it in PC, but then again, maybe it took becoming a king for him to reflect upon his leadership qualities, etc.