They arent cheapening the characters. Lucy, Eustace, Caspian, and Edmund's flaws were all in the books. They just werent dramatized or shown as much. And I think the character arcs in the movie will actually deepen this movie more then the first two.

Lets be honest. C.S. Lewis was lacking in character development. He had great stories filled with imagination, great messages and all. But while the characters may be interesting, he never showed in great detail their personalities or why they did the wrong things they did and we didnt get a whole lot of insight on their change of hearts. I mean, what made Eustace the way he was? Why exactly did Susan stop believing in Narnia? How long was Lucy feeling outshadowed by her sister? Why was Jill being bullied in the first place and what "changed" her during her visit to Narnia?

Lewis gave little snippits of development, but I think its great for the films to go deeper into the character's flaws.

They arent cheapening the characters. Lucy, Eustace, Caspian, and Edmund's flaws were all in the books. They just werent dramatized or shown as much. And I think the character arcs in the movie will actually deepen this movie more then the first two.

Lets be honest. C.S. Lewis was lacking in character development. He had great stories filled with imagination, great messages and all. But while the characters may be interesting, he never showed in great detail their personalities or why they did the wrong things they did and we didnt get a whole lot of insight on their change of hearts. I mean, what made Eustace the way he was? Why exactly did Susan stop believing in Narnia? How long was Lucy feeling outshadowed by her sister? Why was Jill being bullied in the first place and what "changed" her during her visit to Narnia?

Lewis gave little snippits of development, but I think its great for the films to go deeper into the character's flaws.

Lewis relished what he could do with such a limited number of pages. He intentionally did not develop his characters deeply because 1) for his characters, actions speak louder than psychology, 2) he wanted children reading the books to "fill in" those empty spaces themselves.

I think that the problem that the movies make IS make the plot and characters more complicated than the books. Lewis intentionally did not go into too much detail. The movies lose that by dramatizing things . Modern stories tend to develop characters and plot a lot . Nothing wrong in that, but Lewis went to something different. Maybe the film makers are worried such forms of story telling won't hold modern audiences.

I like the way they explore the characters, it makes the story more interesting. And with a story like PC you need something more to hold the audiences attention.

I think that the problem that the movies make IS make the plot and characters more complicated than the books. Lewis intentionally did not go into too much detail

It took me a while to reach this exact conclusion. For a year or more after LWW came out, I kept thinking "something's missing." I liked the actors and the look of the film and the story was quite close to the book. I also liked (but didn't love) it as a film. So what was missing?

It finally hit me one day: Nothing is missing. That's the problem. There's too much. The problem is that there isn't enough missing.

To a large extent, this seems unavoidable though. Lewis often wouldn't so much describe something as he would tell you what it felt like to look at it. That works great in a book. But in a film, you can't just hold up a sign that says "and it was beautiful." You have to actually visualize it.

But that doesn't let the filmmakers' off the hook completely. Has anyone ever seen "Pan's Labyrinth" (directed by Guillermo del Toro)? THAT'S a fairy tale done right on film. If I ever make LWW into a movie, that film will be my biggest influence.

Lets be honest. C.S. Lewis was lacking in character development..

If you feel that way, I would strongly suggest you go back and read The Chronicles again, and take time to reflect.

What makes the Narnia books so amazing is that the inside is bigger than the outside. As a reader, I get so much more out of it than I put into it. It's truly astonishing what Lewis is able to do with so few pages.

"The most difficult thing to achieve in art is simplicity." --Guillermo del Toro

I couldn't agree more with where you are coming from hogglestock. The more "development" that goes into the Narnian characters as the films go on, the more I feel that they tend to drift away from what is present in the books. I'm a bit more understanding of Lucy constantly looking in the mirror and what not in VDT, but I don't believe it needs to be shown and stated over and over again. Once with the Magician's book is enough. The audience is smart, you don't need to whack an idea over and over again to make them get it. I hope Edmund sticking his tongue out at his uncle is cut. It's a bit hard to accept that Edmund goes to enlist and pretends to be 18 and then all of a sudden he's sticking his tongue out in annoyance. Just doesn't seem right, has being a king taught you nothing Edmund? (seems like he's going a bit backwards from his character traits in PC). I just hope that it's not just put in there to get some laughs (I hate it when they sacrifice quality just for a laugh).

I do get it, the characters would be mighty boring if they seemed too perfect, but I feel that they are a bit more "flawed" than need be in the films. The characters are developed in the books, we do see them at their weakest points and their strongest. Their fauts and strengths are both there.

I'm glad you brought about what's contained in the books glumPuddle. It seems to me that the filmmakers need to go back and read the books before deciding on what needs to be in the film. I love what I read in one of the books about production on Toy Story 3 and this comes into the same case for Narnia. When writing the script, for character development, those at Pixar automatically went back to what was done in the first two films and would look at what they had in the third film, taking notes of how such and such character wouldn't do such and such action in such and such way. Obviously, they weren't working from any book material, but I think the same thing needs to be appplied to the Narnia films. They need to really think about what Edmund, Lucy, Eustace, etc. would do in a given situation (even if the scene is changed from the book material).

But that doesn't let the filmmakers' off the hook completely. Has anyone ever seen "Pan's Labyrinth" (directed by Guillermo del Toro)? THAT'S a fairy tale done right on film. If I ever make LWW into a movie, that film will be my biggest influence.

I haven't seen that yet, but heard great things about it.

What makes the Narnia books so amazing is that the inside is bigger than the outside. As a reader, I get so much more out of it than I put into it. It's truly astonishing what Lewis is able to do with so few pages.

Yup. Every time I read the books there is always more. And not just some obscure line (I've read/listened to the books to often now for there to be any obscure line), but the same famous scenes hold the same power while yielding a new insight. I can't even count how many times I've read The Silver Chair, my favorite book, but one night in bed it struck me like lightning: even though Jill and Eustace screw up all the signs, Aslan still shows them the way. I cried after that.

I really disagree with you all on that, you can't follow people for 2 hours through the hardest most trying times of their lives without seeing a bad side. I think the movie characters are much more realistic than the book characters, although you might say that was on purpose, what works for a book does not always work for a movie. A lot of people did not like the way LWW didn't have much character development. And they praised PC for having it. if you are going to make a fuss because they actually turn the characters into human beings with personalities and the like, why don't you complain about the million and one other worse changes that were made. And when I was trying to pick out my favorite characters from the book I couldn't figure out why it was so difficult, I realized it was because they don't have much to them unless they are lucky enough to have the book follow their thoughts, or have extremely large personalities like Puddleglum or Reepicheep.

And as far as nobility is concerned, Peter Pevensie of Finchely was not especially noble, nobility came from being in Narnia as king and working through his faults. That was why they were brought to Narnia so they could overcome their problems and grow up. The movie just expounds on that to make a more interesting and engaging story that people can relate to.

Perhaps we should define nobility before going on. When I think of "nobility," I think of someone who does the right thing even when it's not easy, because it's the right thing. Not because there is necessarily something in it for them.

I really disagree with you all on that, you can't follow people for 2 hours through the hardest most trying times of their lives without seeing a bad side. I think the movie characters are much more realistic than the book characters,

Are you suggesting that we don't see the characters' "bad sides" in the books? (If so, I would strongly recommend you go back for another reading and keep in mind that the stories are not nearly so simple as they appear)

Take Peter, for example...

Book-Peter and Movie-Peter actually go on similar arcs in PC, but in different ways. Read through their journey to Aslan's How. Peter relies on himself way too much. That's his flaw. He's convinced he can use his memory of how Narnia was 1300 years ago to find the How. When Lucy says she saw Aslan, he can't bring himself to follow even though he knows in his heart that she's right. I find that to be a very interesting but relatable contradiction: He knows he's wrong, but he's going to continue doing it his way anyway. This is why when they finally meet Aslan, Peter tells him "I'm so sorry, I've been leading them wrong all along."

For the PC movie, they had to stretch out Peter's arc because Peter meets Caspian about halfway through the story, unlike the book where he meets Caspian near the end of the story (a necessary structural change).

The difference is that Book-Peter's arc is more subtle and nuanced, and demands further reflection. Movie-Peter slams you over the head with his arc, as if the filmmakers were afraid we wouldn't get it unless they spelled it out.

It's really amazing what Lewis is able to do with so few words. Lewis is able to give us just a little bit, and then we effortlessly fill in the rest. This concept is fascinatingly explored in the film "Inception," where the characters "create the world of the dream" and then the subject "fills it with their subconscious." The whole film is an analogy for story-telling. With Narnia, CS Lewis performs a very successful inception on the reader.

"Inception" also explores why stories are more effective when they're subtle (rather than in your face). If you're totally consciously aware of what's going on, it's not as effective or compelling.

I have read Prince Caspian several times and for a while it was my favorite book. I still think the movie characters are more realistic, that is to say humans thrown through all this turmoil would have larger bad sides than portrayed in the book.

I agree with what you say about Peter, what I didn't like was how the guys earlier in the discussion didn't like the way the movies explore the children's personalities .

^ I mostly liked what they did with the characters in LWW. PC, not so much. Like I said, just way too in-your-face. I felt like I was being spoon fed a story rather than being told one.

That's why the characters in the book come across as much more real to me. In real life, you can't immediately look at someone and know what they're going through. Because Lewis doesn't slam you in the face with the character arcs, we are like flies on the wall. We observe them, and reach our own conclusions about what they're going through.

^ I mostly liked what they did with the characters in LWW. PC, not so much. Like I said, just way too in-your-face. I felt like I was being spoon fed a story rather than being told one.

That's why the characters in the book come across as much more real to me. In real life, you can't immediately look at someone and know what they're going through. Because Lewis doesn't slam you in the face with the character arcs, we are like flies on the wall. We observe them, and reach our own conclusions about what they're going through.

I Completely agree with you. the way the characters were developed and portrayed in LWW was much better, but I understand the interpretation in PC. I Understand what and why they did what they did with Peter and Caspian in PC. I forget who said it, but I agree that Lewis did not develop characters very much. Its not that he didn't develop them at all, it just wasn't his main focus. What might be acceptable in print, might not seem to make logical sense on screen so they must fill the gaps. We all do it in our minds, the film will just be viewing someone elses interpretation of the character gaps.
The Narnia books are short and must be fleshed out into movies, where as books like HP must be cropped into movies, so the fans have different complaints for a series.

I am already bracing myself for "unfaithful" adaption of VDT. But I understand that it was hard to adapt. I hope they do better with the SC. I think it is a much easier book to adapt to film so I think that they will have to change the characters less.

So basicly. you want to leave confused and spend the rest of the night trying to figure out what was happening to the character.

Confused? Of course not. I just don't want to get slammed over the head with it. Because that makes them feel like just movie characters instead of real people. It's the easy way out. Creating characters that feel real and nuanced is really really difficult.

But I do enjoy films that leave me with things to ponder. If you walk out of the theater but never think about the film again, I say that was a waste of 2 hours and $10. I love it when films (and books too, like Narnia) give me something more.

Why? Were you confused about the characters in the Narnia books? Lewis is very subtle about most of it, and I'm sure you understood what he was getting at.

Hollywood does seem to generally think that people are too stupid to pick up on things unless they shout it at them. Thank God for directors like Christopher Nolan who have more faith in their audience.

It's always more powerful when we infer things about the characters rather than be outright told them.