I wouldn't call Peter or Caspian a jerk. I think they both acted pretty realistic. They both seemed very human, with good points and bad points at the end of the day. I don't think they were really less noble, just more human. I think the movies try to bring an elemant of realism to the films which a lot of book fans hate. For a lot of Narnia fans, the series is a bunch of childhood magic and fantasy.
Saying something like, in real life Peter would've probably struggled with pride, or Caspian probably would've felt weak, the two probably wouldn't have gotten along ect, is like saying, Repunzel would've been in a lot of pain when the prince climbed her hair. Probably would've broken her neck. Or like saying frogs don't turn into princes. Carpets can't fly ect.
The realism in it kind of smashes the cookies of the book fans. At the same time, if you introduce a fairytale to say, a teenager for the first time, maybe they've never heard of Cinderella, they may have a bunch of questions, that we who have grown up with it don't really care to ask. Why is the prince kissing some girl he just met? Why does he have to try to shoe on every woman in the kindom? Didn't he have the slightest idea what she looked like? Why on earth didn't he bother to ask her name?
I think it's the same with the Narnia books, in a way. If you have people who haven't read the books they may wonder, why Peter is so perfect. I don't think people have really liked watching perfect people since The Brady Bunch. C.S. Lewis was really good at writing out temptation and such in the minds of the characters. That ways it didn't feel so much like The Brady Bunch Goes To Narnia. With Lucy and the spell book, she was tempted and we see the bad things that go on in her mind but we don't really see a wrong action. In a movie it's better to show things, to show action.
I personally don't like for characters to be too perfect. I think the main reason they weren't in the books was because we could see their thoughts. Since we can't really do that in a movie, I like the decision to add some realism to the films. I don't think they've taken it too far. If you're a strict book purist than giving someone like Peter any kind of flaw is too much because he didn't really have any in the books. I agree with what Josh said. Peter was pretty much normal under the circumstances, but compared to his book counterpart, normal looks like pure evil.

Peter has been High King for 5 to 10 years, just a year in England shouldn't turn him into and arrogant jerk. If anyone should be perfect it would be him.

Josh Wrote:
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.

No one knows if the plan would have worked. There were many factors playing into its failure, including Edmund playing with his flashlight. The major problem with the Night Raid is that they failed to wait on Aslan which is why I approve of that change from the book. There's a huge spiritual lesson to be learned from it.

It would've made more sense for Caspian to wait until after Miraz was captured, except Caspian already knew they were going to lose that particular battle.

But that's crazy! No one has ever taken that castle!

Caspian probably thought it best to free Dr. Cornelius first so that he could retreat with the rest of them when the battle was inevitably called off. It probably would've been wise of Peter to listen to Caspian when he said the raid would fail since Caspian was the only one who knew exactly what they were up against. Caspian knew how many men and resources Miraz had, and was probably familiar with Telmarine battle, and he knew how many soldiers and resources were on the Narnian side. Knowing all this he had already decided, logically speaking, they would lose. So it wouldn't have made sense for him to wait until they'd won a battle he was pretty sure they were going to lose.

It was his fault, however, that he didn't kill Miraz there in the castle. Caspian's big problem during the Night Raid was that he let his emotions get the best of him. It's only human, he's fighting a battle against his own people which he knows he's going to lose. On top of that he learns that his uncle killed his father. That sounds like good reason to be a basket case.

Peter on the other hand, has faught many battles and is much older than Caspian in Narnian years. He's spent a year in England where no one sees him for who he really is or treats him accordingly. I realize he isn't just any kid, he's High King Peter the Magnificent, but going back and forth from King to kid would make anyone, even High King Peter the Magnificent, slightly upset, to say the least.

I can see where he's coming from. Then he goes back to Narnia, where it's his domain, the place where he ruled for so long. Then there's a Telmarine prince trying to lead the Narnians. I can see how this would look, to a normal person. Telmarines pretty much destroyed the Narnia Peter knew and now here's this Telmarine kid (yes kid, even though Movie Caspian is older than Book Caspian he's still younger than Peter) trying to lead what's left of the Narnians. Caspian's young and considerably less experienced than Peter but wants to lead anyway. I can see why Peter wouldn't trust Caspian and let him take the reigns. I can also see why, being treated like a dumb kid for so long he felt the need to be right and finally prove that he was still a king and not a dumb kid.

aragorn2 wrote:
Peter has been High King for 5 to 10 years, just a year in England shouldn't turn him into and arrogant jerk. If anyone should be perfect it would be him.

Being in a position of authority does not make you perfect. Hopefully, it will make you a little bit wiser but by no means does it make you flawless. Peter was High King Peter the Magnificent, Not High King Peter the Perfect.

My point still is he is much more of a jerk than he needed to be.

Once again he was not a jerk

One thing I will say is that although he had had 15 years of experience as King, he was thrust back into the body of a teenage boy. That messes with your head. He went from a King who was an adult, to a teenager. Being in a teenage body he still had teenage hormone issues. And it must have been extremely humiliating to be treated like a kid with no real worth after being the head of a country as an adult for so long. I mean, he was an adult and everyone is forcing him into a "kid" role that just doesnt fit him anymore.

And despite his experience, it had been an entire year since he ruled. He was probably a bit rusty when it came to performing the job as a king.

And wouldnt you get annoyed when, after trying to find Caspian to help restore Narnia, you get attacked by Caspian. And when Caspian learns who you are he isnt grateful or happy at all. In fact he seemed dissapointed in the Pevensies.

And honestly I think if they were in charge, Edmund and Susan would have acted just like Peter. Maybe worse. Edmund seemed to agree with most of Peter's decisions. The only reason he never came across as unpleasent was because he never spoke much. He agreed with Peter and was gung ho for the Night Raid.

Susan wasnt supportive of the Night Raid but it really had more to do with the fact that she had a crush on Caspian rather then she beleiving the plan wasnt good or that it wasnt wise to act before seeking Aslan first.

One more thing regarding Susan. At least give Peter credit for trying to accomplish something and wanting to help out, even if his means werent the best. The entire time Susan just acted frustrated, like she didnt want to be in Narnia and she didnt care that much about restoring it. In fact, during the Night Raid she seemed to have a "well since I HAVE to be here, I might as well do something useful" attitude. She constantly critisised the decisions of Peter and Caspian, yet she did very little to offer an alternative.

I guess the reason people don't bash Susan the way they do Peter, is because Susan was much WORSE in the book. I honestly hated Susan in the PC book. Book Susan was much worse then movie Peter. But like I said earlier, in the movies Peter's character only seems like a "jerk" when put against his perfect book character. And Susan seems nice because when put against her book character, she actually isnt so bad.

Alright, I think we might as well create a poll to see what everyone else thinks of him.

And as far as Susan, I hate her much more in the movie than in the book. In the book she is only annoying at one time and at least she had some kind of an excuse being woken up in the middle of the night and being told to start marching.

Once again he was not a jerk

I believe that is a matter of opinion, Josh. I think Peter at the very least "acted or behaved" like one. I'm sure many others would agree with that assessment. But if you choose to disagaree, that is your privilege.

THe problem with a poll is that its biased by book fans. I really think the general public likes Peter better then Caspian.

Anyway I think I'll just leave it at that because I am spending too much time defending a fictional person.

I like the flawed Lucy as well. And the more mature Caspian seems plenty more noble to me!