I think he will be a lot more mature, it would be hard to be king for 3 years and not be any more mature for it.

^ That's true. I wonder if in the *fight* between Edmund and Caspian at Deathwater Caspian will end up looking more mature than Edmund. I'd rather he did not because they are both equally responsible for their actions and they are both wrong.

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.

I don't think that pandering to Western audiences is the only reason that Peter was cocky and arrogant in PC. I think that what needed to be highlighted in the movie was that however noble Peter was seen as a character, he could still do the wrong thing, lose his way, not pay attention to others, Lucy in particular, and behave in a headstrong and 'I am the leader and know everything' manner.

It was important that Peter behaved this way to allow the other characters to be defined properly by their choices in the film. We need to appreciate why Edmund supports Lucy when she sees Aslan and the others don't, Susan's attitude to both Peter and Lucy, and to understand Aslan's reaction to Lucy's complaining that she couldn't persuade them to follow her. Lucy is called the Valiant for good reason but she needs to learn the courage to stand up to her siblings as well, even if it means doing her own thing and going her own way.

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.

In Narnia, Lucy had more 'cred', I think. Susan behaved like just another 'grown up' lady. Susan never had to be jealous of Lucy's beauty since everyone else told her she was more beautiful than Lucy. Otherwise I agree with you.

I can't see anything wrong with a 'Saving the world' thing in VDT as well as a search for 7 missing lords. Isn't that what Aslan's sacrifice was about? Isn't that what the Chronicles were all about, even LB? And ultimately isn't this the theme of most stories, be it Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt or VDT's Lucy begging Aslan to deliver them from the Dark Island?

Thank you for this topic! You have said exactly what I was thinking. In a movie everything gets exaggerated, and I get really tired of it. There is a difference between 'believable character' (which I consider most of the Narnians to be), and 'outright jerk', which is what Peter was in PC. And I would deny, very strongly, that being unselfish and noble is 'unrealistic'. People are unselfish all the time in real life. People risk their lives for the sake of others--in real life. I personally find it really insulting--to me and to the characters--if they are derailed so 'I can identify with them'. I can identify with people who are trying to do the right thing for the sake of others. I have a much harder time identifying with selfish, vain people. Not because I have never been selfish or vain, but because I see in the original, noble character not what I am, but what I hope to be. When I see an otherwise ordinary person be heroic, I think that maybe I could be like that too.
I also get really annoyed by the people who have to drop in random stuff with the character's past that wasn't in the book. And when they add flaws they didn't have. Yes, it may be a realistic flaw, but its not realistic for that character. Character derailment bothers me more than plot changes. That irritated me about the Lord of the Rings movies, too. Weepy Frodo and reluctant Aragorn really got on my nerves after a while, though Sam and Gandalf acted right.
And despite what I have heard from other people, I do not consider either Narnia, or The Lord of the Rings, to be lacking in character development. At least not if character development is defined as the characters being well done enough to almost seem real. If its defined as an extensive backstory, and the display of numerous flaws, they don't have it. And I don't want them to. It is possible to make good characters without an extensive backstory. But none of the Narnians are exactly flawless. (except for Aslan.)
As a last note, I would expect being kings and queens in Narnia to have a good effect on them. And I find them being upset about not being treated better in the real world to be kind of annoying. They are kings and queen in Narnia, not in this world, and in the books they seemed to accept that. Expecting people to treat you differently because you are king in another world that they don't even know exists just doesn't make sense. And even if you told them about it they wouldn't believe it and would just think you were crazy. Either way, I don't see why accepting that they were rulers in Narnia and children in England is that unrealistic. If you have spent time in two very different worlds, inhabited by very different people, you can't expect both to treat you the same way. When they did it in the movies they just made Peter act like he had a huge ego.

I actually like the way they have Aragorn reluctant to take the throne, he is reluctant for the right reasons. He knows that he has the weakness of man in him, the same weakness that allowed evil to continue. And it is not like he was retiring or something like that, he was defending the shire and Bree from the orcs of the Misty mountains. And when he found that becoming king was the best way he could help his people that is what he does. And he must have been reluctant in the book or he would have taken the throne rather than wander in the north.

And as far as the chronicles Peter was too much of a jerk, but other than that I have no real problem with the character development.
I think it improves on Lewis' books since unless the character have huge personalities it is extremely hard if possible to see what they are like.
I had a hard time picking out 10 favorite characters because there are just a bunch of faces rather than people.
With the exception of people like Lucy, Reepicheep, Puddleglum.

Once again, Peter was not a jerk. Caspian was.

Josh I don't want to start a "no your wrong, I'm right" conversation , but I personally felt Peter was the jerk (but Caspian was also annoying.) Maybe thats because I always liked Peter more than Caspian as a character in the book and therefore expected more out of him (more nobility and humility.)

But if my favorite characters from books I have read, or historical figures I love, came back and treated me like that, I wouldn't be to happy. I mean, I would show them respect as well, but I would not expect them to be rude and brash (unless thats how they really were in the book or real life!)

I liked flawed characters and the Narnia characters do have flaws. But Lewis wrote them in a much simpler way. His style was just different. Some may say that that does not normally work in a book but I think it works with the Narnia books. I also think it would work better for the Narnia movies.

Once again, Peter was not a jerk.

I agree. There would be more of a sympathetic view if the back story and reasoning for this behavior was more clear. Here`s a possible scenario for you. Check the link to find out. http://www.fanfiction.net/s/4417016/1/T ... _b_bBird_b
If film makers handled this situation in a similar fashion then Peter`s motivations would never have been viewed as selfish. He would have come off as very noble.

Maybe some more backstory would have helped as well as a chance for Peter to apologize, especially to Aslan. I might have accepted it then.

I think you are all wrong. Here on this board I am told constantly that all are imperfect, that nobody deserves favour with God and that it is only by grace that we are justified. We are told that C.S.Lewis wrote the Narnia series as a supposal, rather than the Christian allegory that he is suspected of having done. What I am saying that if we are flawed characters in reality why do you expect idealised characters in novels, rather than ordinary people with flaws that need redemption just as much as those in real life?

Children can read the Narnia series without reading too much into the characters. But I suspect C.S.Lewis would have agreed wholeheartedly with his contemporary, Ethel Turner, who wrote about seven naughty little Australians because there are no such people as perfect little Australian children. Even in that story it is the naughtiest of the children, Judy, who dies nobly, protecting her youngest brother from a falling tree.

And I think that those who are old enough to be able to go onto this board unsupervised should be old enough to be mindful of the character arcs of the Pevensies and Caspian within the series, why the Pevensies, in particular, find themselves in Narnia, what they learn there, why they might need repeat visits and what they learn about Aslan whilst they are there.

I don't see that there is a loss of nobility in the films. Don't forget there is a war going on in UK at that time, amply demonstrated in both films, and even in the trailers for VDT. In that war, UK, as a whole, did get the moral high ground, but they were all ordinary people, all just as faulty as everyone else, living in stressful times, where children were forced to be adults when separated from their parents, then went back to being treated as children at school and elsewhere. Go read Michelle Magorian's tales of UK's evacuees to get an appreciation of different scenarios.

And there is only one story where we need to understand the nobility of the main character, the Greatest Story Ever Told. The Narnia series never pretended to be the equal of that story.

I think we should be asking what we the audience would do in the film characters' places. If we were in the Pevensies' shoes at the age they were supposed to be, in the wartime evacuations they were in, in those films, would we have behaved any better than they were portrayed as doing in the films? Would we have sold out our siblings for Turkish delight? Would we have had a need to learn of Aslan's sacrifice, as the Pevensies did in LWW?

Would we have gone back to normal life still blundering on, thinking we knew the way, not asking for Aslan's directions in what was by then unfamiliar territory? Would a boy like Peter, or even Edmund, either in the film or in the book, realistically take direction from a girl, let alone his baby sister? Certainly not during WW2 they wouldn't, I can swear to that one. Even Edmund supported Lucy out of a sense of shame and of fair play, more than because he believed she was a good guide. Would we have just gone along with the crowd, like Susan? Or would we allow ourselves to be overruled from what we had to do, like Lucy?

In LWW Peter is hesitant about taking on the leadership he displays so creditably later on. But when he goes back to Narnia the second time, in the films he is finding that however nobly he learned to behave in Narnia, might not be a basis for getting along with his peers in real life. He needs to learn not only when to lead, but also when to surrender leadership and to trust Aslan's guidance rather than his own opinion of his place in the world. As in the PC scenario, time has passed by and his judgement and sense of direction might be out of date. What Peter needed to learn was not an easy lesson to learn, as both Caspian and Peter show in PC. But in the film they manage it, both of them, by the end, when Peter surrenders Rhindon to Caspian's care. And when in front of Aslan, Prince Caspian realises that he, too, still has much to learn about being a king, not just that he had the right to be one.

It seems that in VDT Edmund feels he would rather go into battle, putting himself into danger, than to submit to being Eustace's "guest". He thinks of himself as a man, even a King, and with good reason, after his repentance, his loyalty and bravery in those previous Narnian visits. He was hardly alone in UK. How many other young lads of similar ages, some of whom might well have had royal lineage, went into battle, in both World Wars? And how many of those who fell will we remember in three week's time on November 11, which is Remembrance Day?

No I don't think the films make the characters lose nobility at all. Maybe we need to understand the courage it took for Edmund or other underaged kids to even try to enlist, even though their parents would have been aghast at their wanting to do so.

I just think there is some "character development" that seems unneeded. I mean does lucy have to be kidnapped? Why can't she choose to go. i just want a good reason.

Of course Peter was a jerk, the entire movie he is acting all superior to Caspian and the way he talks to Trumpkin, everybody but you says that Perter was a jerk.
How was Caspian a jerk? He was a weakling and a little unstable, but he was never a jerk.

How was Caspian a jerk? He was a weakling and a little unstable, but he was never a jerk.

Yes, Casoian was annoying, but he wasn't...so rude I guess. Ok, now that I think about it, maybe it was just the accent that was annoying.

Yes Caspian didn't follow orders during the Nightraid, but Peter, knowing that the plan was failing was arrogant enough to not call it off. I just feel that Peter bears more responsibility being the High KIng.

Of course Peter was a jerk, the entire movie he is acting all superior to Caspian and the way he talks to Trumpkin, everybody but you says that Perter was a jerk.

Correction, he WAS superior to Caspian.

I understand why Peter lashed out at Caspian. Caspian screwed up the entire Night Raid for his own purposes. He messed up by first abandoning the plan...which would have worked, by going to Dr. Corneilius. He is willing to risk ruining the mission to break Corneilius out when really it would have made more sense to save Corneilius AFTER Miraz was already captured.

Then he goes against the plan AGAIN for a selfish little "You killed my father!" rant. And then he lets Miraz escape.

Peter's plan would have worked if it werent for Caspian and for that I completly side with Peter. And I don't think he was ever a "glory seeker" like so many accuse him of being. Rather, it seems like he felt it was his responsibility to restore the kingdom of Narnia which is why he was so frustrated when it came to people telling him to retreat or that he doesnt know what he is doing or that its his fault for things going wrong.

Honestly I think its the book fans who hate Peter more. Everybody I know that hasnt read the books all like Peter better. They think he's cooler, that he makes better decisions and they don't like Caspian because he acts like a scared, self doubting weakling the whole movie. And I think they see Peter's actions as realisitc.

I understand that book Peter was almost perfect in terms of kindess and he didnt often lash out at people. He was extremely polite and noble, which is why I think that why movie Peter seems like a jerk in comparison.

NOOO, I have no problem with the argument after the night raid, Caspian was at fault there.

What I don't like is right after they met when he is talking to Reepicheep and says "At least some of you can handle a blade" trying to insult Caspian and then when Caspian hands his sword back he gives him that dumb arrogant look.
And the when they are making plans when they both start talking at the same time, Peter looks down his nose at him like he's someone that shouldn't be there.

As far as him being High King, I couldn't care less who he is, he has no right to be a jerk.