That is all there is, I wish they had a scene with him apologizing to Trumpkin or something like that.

I actually like that they had Peter be a brat. I think that was interesting. To think about how it would effect the kids being back in England after being adults in Narnia.

I think he did look a little to evil in some of the scenes. The worst was the bit when Lucy yells stop after the Peter/Caspian duel and Peter has this really mean look on his face. That was a little too much.

I think also even if he had been mean and then his character had recovered in the end it would have been fine. I think that even for me i didn't feel like his character recovered in the end. There needed to be more there.

I was wndering about the fact that Lucy was mostly worried about here appearance. I always thought that it was just in the back of her mind. I never thought that anyone really thought that she even cared. And now in the movie she will ask Edmund if she looks like Susan. To me that seems so unlike Lucy. I feel like Edmund would say something like,''Uh, what happened to you, Lucy.'' I didn't feel like it was a huge thing in the book it was only mentioned on one island in one tiny section. Ugh! I hate that they made her more vain.

^ you know more people, especally girls, feel this way deep inside. Lucy has always known that there are thousands of things more important then how pretty she is, but when the opportunity is presented, to be the most beautiful in all world, who could walk away? Susan might be able to walk away with less effort than Lucy but only because she was never jealous of Lucy's beauty, but she could have easily been jealous of something far greater that Lucy always had.
I don't believe any loss of nobility happened, just a change. I find myself thinking of it this way. We've all sat down and studied Revelation but we all still disagree on the time of the rapture. We respect each others ideas but can find nothing to agree upon except that it will happen. C. S. Lewis left these characters open for us to fill in, much like God has done with prophecy, but when it comes to making it visual one view must be chosen and others to be left out.

On one hand, yes, many characters are cheapened with a loss of nobility. We see this with Peter in the first two films. In the first case he's a very reluctant hero (not to dissimilar from Aragorn in LotR). In the second, he's cocky and arrogant and must be humbled. These days, people don't want someone to be a "goody two-shoes." They want a more rugged, flawed hero, perhaps because it's easier to enjoy for today's Western audiences. So it's disappointing the filmmakers often pander to that.

On the other side, a book offers differing levels of character development. Sometimes it might be lacking, and the filmmakers decide to amplify it and expound upon what was already mentioned. In other cases, a book might allow more detail than a movie can easily fit. I don't find the character of Aragorn underdeveloped in Tolkien's work. However, there's so much detail about him that you end up with a round character. In a shorter film, you don't have time to give all those details, so the easiest way to make a character more round is to give them an arch and change of character in some respect.

I really enjoy character development and felt there was enough for Edmund in LWW and I could relate to him and Lucy. There was not enough of Edmund in movie PC for his character to develop. It seemed he developed more in the book than movie, because there was no reference to his past except for when he said he looked pretty stupid the last time he didn't believe Lucy. Then again, he would be disobeying Aslan to bring it up, maybe? So maybe it's good he apparently doesn't bring it up in VDT movie? In VDT book, Lewis does not explain why Edmund was so harsh to Eustace. (I love Edmund but I am taking Eustace's side) Was it because he saw his former self in him? Was he looking out for Lucy? Was he feeling a need to defend himself to Eustace? Was he embarrased that Caspian and the crew knew he was related to Eustace, therefore trying to prove they were completely different? I really like them showing more of a reason as to why Lucy would do the beauty spell. I mean, in the book she wanted to eavesdrop on her friends and do the beauty spell. Why? Why would someone be jealous of their sister? Why is someone worried with what their friends are saying about them at this very moment away from them? Lewis said Lucy wanted to do the beauty spell because she didnt do the other one, but why a spell to make her prettier than Susan? There has to be a deep reason and why Susan? Why not a spell to make her strong as Edmund or make Mr. Tumnus come back from the dead? See why it's important to know these things?

Let's face it, characters who want to do things because it's right, without any personal gain for themselves, is seen in Hollywood as "boring".

That's part of my point. Couldn't there be some way to keep things interesting without sacrificing the characters? Surely some movie somewhere has managed to do that?
Or, to refer back to my original post, is the whole concept of unselfish goodness just too foreign to life in Hollywood/America these days?

I'm sure there are movies like that. Most older movies like "Brother Sun, Sister Moon", "The Robe," "The Sound of Music" etc. have characters that are very noble and do much for others without thinking of personal gain. It's just this modern society that we live in is hardening people's heats

I don`t think there is a lack of nobility in the characters. The characters are just portrayed as flawed people. This does not mean they don`t have nobility.I suppose true nobility comes from overcoming an inner conflict. Then he or she choosing to follow the right path. The film makers want the audience to connect with the characters on a personal level. Having a bad beginning or a middle doesn`t matter. It`s the end result that counts.

I have heard some saying that the nobility of the Dawn Treader story is gone because they are trying to save the world instead of 7 lost lords.

But in the storybook it is clear that Caspian left Narnia to find the lost lords and that they are sucked into destroying the DI later on in the journey.

Besides what is wrong with saving the world, was Frodo's choice to carry the ring to Mordor not noble because it was to save the world? If anything it increases the nobility.

Personally, I'm glad they are presenting a more flawed Lucy. She was to perfect in PC to the point where she almost got annoying.

And the changes to Lucy's character I don't think will make her seem like a bad person or unlikeable (like some people felt the changes in PC affected Peter's character), but rather just make her seem human.

I think that normally film makers have to take complicated books and make them more simple for a movie format (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Pride and Prejudice, etc.) However with Narnia I think the film makers have to (or feel they have to) take a simple plot and turn it into a complicated movie. That why they feel they need to expand or Lucy's character and Edmund's temptation, etc.

I think that they don't need to do that. However if they choose to stick to the simplicity of the book they need to make a much smaller, less epic type of movie. Maybe they don't want it to be unepic (I just made up that word and it is copyrighted by me .)

Very true. aragorn2

Perhaps all the characters` personal issues also get in the way. Not everyone loves a flawed or reluctant hero . Many fear that`s what film makers are turning the characters into . They begin to fit the classic Hollywood formula. There are many changes surrounding our beloved characters. If these changes are properly handled then the new elements could enrich the story and deepen the characters.(Hopefully)

I think this idea may also come from how Eustace`s dragon experience is being handled. Some believe the film makers give viewers the impression that his grace from Aslan is earned by doing good deeds. I can`t say that`s wrong. The best example I can provide is Beauty and the Beast . The beast had to be kind and selfless to regain his humanity. However while still being a beast he learned and clearly portrayed his change of heart. His new outlook on life as a human is just icing on the cake. Perhaps if Eustace`s situation is handled in a similar fashion then he will be noble.

I wonder how Caspian will be handled. I doubt they will have him have tantrum to go to the end of the world since we know he does (what would be the point of all that fuss if he does go?) Will he be more mature than the last film?