In a lot of ways I think I perfer the movie aging. It's more realistic, doing all that fighting and all that...as FK said, there is a certain magic about having young people/children be the savior of Narnia, but if they're TOO young it makes it pretty hard to believe (aka 10 and 11 and fighting and winning battles).

However this...

PC Movie:
Caspian - 16
Peter - 16
Susan - 15

Even if the producers said that's what their ages were supposed to be, there is NO way they looked those ages. Now that's kinda unrealistic. Would be better if it was:
Caspian - 19
Peter - 18-19
Susan - 17

I voted for book ages because I'm contrary like that.

Intellectually, I like the reasons for the movie ages, but, yeah. You make one change to the book, and then you make another and another and... as a book purist I cannot agree to it.

I like their ages in the movies.....mostlt because I have grown so used to them in the movies, but also because they just seem to work really well in their ages in the movie!

just my two cents.....

This is something that has worried me. I mean..what are they going to look like in LB? That's what will be funny once we see the movie, terribly uncertain until we do.

I think their ages in the movies are better...I think it's much more realistic if you consider the characters and what they're doing, the way they act, talk etc. it just makes it more believable!

I voted for movie ages. The extra years seem to work better for me for the film characters as opposed to the book characters.

I think our Watchful Admin made some good points and as I cannot think of any others at the moment, I'll leave it at that.

I think the ages in the movies were more realistic....just cant picture a child fighting in battle scenes. It just works well in the movies and the characters!

VDT:
We don't actually know yet whether the production plans to keep the 1 year later on earth and 3 years later in Narnia, but if they do, here's what the ages will look like.

Caspian - 19
Edmund - 14
Lucy - 11
Eustace - Unknown, but probably the same age as Lucy - 10 or 11

I have heard from a member of the production team that they are, indeed, working on the "one year in our world/three in Narnia" formula.

I doubt they are aiming for those ages though. I think we have to accept that Lucy was 8/9 in LWW, about 10 in PC, and more like 11 or even 12 in VDT. Eustace is also more like 11/12. Edmund needs to be allowed to be a grown up 15, having had a birthday just before PC which made him about 14 in the movie.
But I rather suspect they won't make a big thing of how old each child is supposed to be.

Fantasia Kitty I thought in the movies in LWW Susan was said by Adamson in a DVD interview 13 and was 14 in PC and Ben Barnes said in an interview that Caspian's age was 18 so that makes him 21 in VDT. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I voted for ages in the movies, IDK

I guess it depends on which production person you talk to then on Susan's age. Not that there's a really huge difference between 13-14 and 13. I'll update my post though to include her PC age range from 14-15.

As far as Caspian's age goes, every interview with every filmmaker I heard was very vague on what Caspian's movie age was. All they would do was quote the line in the book that talked about Peter seeing a boy [Caspian] about his own age. Since they set Peter's age at about apprx 16, that's what I had Caspian's at. I've never heard an actual number before.

But I rather suspect they won't make a big thing of how old each child is supposed to be.

I have often wondered that maybe the production shouldn't have specifically stated "ONE YEAR SINCE LWW TO PC" cause I don't know about everyone else, but Lucy and Edmund sure looked a lot more than just one year older to me.

Maybe the production won't make such a big deal about time difference between PC to VDT. But on the other hand, Georgie, Skandar and Ben didn't age like they did from LWW to PC.

Yes the age thing really is confusing. It's juust Ben looks so much older then the Pevensie's, it's weird

I sort of prefer the movie ages to the book ages. I always envisioned the characters older than it said in the book anyways. I agree with what everyone's been saying about it being more realistic too... All the movies have been good so far, so I'm not very worried about how the characters will age in the Last Battle. If they're older, that's fine with me. ; )

I prefer the book ages simply because that is how they were written by CS Lewis. If you take these ages into account Georgie Henley (for example) should be the age she was in the LWW film in the VDT film (as shown by FK above).
Obviously, due to the length of time it takes to make a film, the younger actors are going to be showing how much they've aged since the previous film which cannot really be avoided without some clever CGI.
(I actually thought Lucy looked slightly younger at the end of PC than she did in the middle of it. Perhaps they shot the beginning and the end scenes with the station at the same time).

I much prefere the ages in the movies they are much more reallistic, especially with they boys fighting. I could not see a 13 years old going out and winning a battle. But I've always been much more partial to the movies then the books.

Quote fantasia_kitty,

"And finally, the ages of the actors at the time they filmed the characters:

LWW:
Peter - 17
Susan - 16
Edmund - 13
Lucy - 10

PC:
Caspian - 25
Peter - 20
Susan - 19
Edmund - 16
Lucy - 13

VDT:
Caspian - 27
Edmund - 18
Lucy - 15
Eustace - 16

....................................."

I actually like thinking the Pevensies and Caspian were around the ages the actors were. It seems to fit better for me, in my mind. Though I do like to think maybe Caspian was 22, since with the little bit of make-up, and things he looked a little younger then twenty five. That's just my opinion.