I have an issue with Susaspian. I do think it would affect the other movies. I do not know WHY in the world they put this.

I do not have an issue with the accent. I am Spanish. I have a Spanish accent- albeit, not everybody can tell it is Spanish. I am having trouble foreseeing why would this affect the rest of the movies.

I voted "no" because I don't think that the Suspian decision could have been made by informed people. I don't mind the accent but changing the characters makes it hard to make the movies flow together. Inconsistency is really annoying in a series.

The big problem I see is that unsaved directors are making movies of books that were written by strong Christians like Lewis and Tolkien.
Look at the changes made in LOTR: Frodo weakened from the strong character he was in the book (cringing from the dark riders instead of fighting, needing Arwen to ride with him across the river instead of going by himself and then making the challenge himself, offering the ring to the Nazgul, and sending Sam away at Shelob's lair), Faramir totally stripped of his outstanding moral fiber, etc.
These directors instead of making the characters like they are in the books give them their own ideas of what someone might be like from their conception of life. They seem to think, "What would I do in this situation?" and "No way anyone could be that morally strong."
They have different goals for the movie than the author had for the book. So they aren't as concerned about the messages conveyed in the story as they are in pleasing today's audiences.
Hopefully, Michael Apted will not follow the trend set by Peter Jackson and Andrew Adamson.

The big problem I see is that unsaved directors are making movies of books that were written by strong Christians like Lewis and Tolkien.

I disagree. I'd make the argument that directors with strong Christian values might be too concerned with the spiritual aspects of the books and make them overly-preachy or overbearing when they were supposed to be more subtle. Christian filmmaking is filled with cheesy, sappy, schlock. Why is that? I think it's because the directors are too concerned with making their films as "Christian" as possible and neglect good storytelling, acting, etc.

Having read LOTR, is it that much of a disservice to create flaws in characters when it makes sense? The writers were trying to make the ring a powerful force in the films. Having Frodo struggle more with it reinforces its strength. And I still think Tolkien made the mistake of having Faramir completely resist the ring. Why are all the rest of the characters so drawn to it? That's horribly inconsistent and I agree with the changes the screenplay made.

Unfortunately, some changes in Narnia have been more objectionable to me, especially since many of them were made for no particularly good reason (cheesy one-liners and modern dialogue, altering Aslan's lines and weakening his character, adding a Susan and Caspian romance, etc.)

But what makes Narnia so effective is that the Christian themes don't seem to be perceived as preachy by most readers I've come across. And that's a strength in the series that should be preserved in the films as well. We need people more dedicated to the source material, not necessarily evangelical Christian filmmakers.

I think film-makers feel no responsiblity for how their decisions will affect possible future movies, (hence the chagrin over the Suspian and accent issues), but they do feel an entitlement to use ideas from the later source materials.

It's the best of both worlds for them, but usually their decisions are irresponsible and very dissapointing.

Brylowman: I will have to agree to disagree with you on that.....not to say that I wouldn't want Christian directors making these movies, but for this: Lewis and Tolkien were indeed Christians, but even though Lewis wrote Narnia as an alagory, it's not exactly like the Biblical story (LWW) and Lewis himself said that he really intended Aslan and Narnia to be a what if Aslan, like Jesus, wanted to save a world like Narnia, this is what would happen kind of thing. and Tolkien never wrote his as an alagory, even though there are Biblical truths to be found in LOTR.
personally, I am just glad these movies are being made!

My point is that Hollywood in general seems to frown upon showing people with great character. They make the bad guys really bad, but they don't like to show the good guys as really good. Frodo in the book had great perseverance and resisted the evil of the ring all the way till the end. Faramir was made villainous in the movie where he was supposed to be a great encouragement to Frodo and show that evil was repugnant to him, not enticing. To think that everyone must be influenced by temptations equally or at all is ludicrous to the Christian who has been freed from sin. That is my point.

You thought Faramir was villainous? Really? Oooookay now.

I honestly don't think the directors consider how their changes will effect future films. Pretty good example of this is the Harry Potter movies. Each new director has fiddled with the geography of Hogwarts, even changing up the appearance of places like Hagrid's hut.

Faramir wasn't villainous, but he was weak, like Boromir... and Aragorn and Galadriel and all else who couldn't handle the ring.
But this ain't TheOneRing.net....

I think the directors consider the big, in-your-face changes, but I also think they often miss the small things the fans catch onto. Like accents.

Faramir wasn't villainous, but he was weak, like Boromir... and Aragorn and Galadriel and all else who couldn't handle the ring.
But this ain't TheOneRing.net....

True, I was trying to show that a major thing I've noticed that they change is the moral integrity of the good characters: like making Peter so maddeningly argumentative and arrogant, and Susan and Caspian attracted to each other solely by their looks. Don't get me wrong, I am very glad these movies are being made and I am a huge fan of the LOTR movies but I'm not blind to areas that they could have been better. (Btw, I should have said that they vilified the character of Faramir which does not mean he was made into a villain, but had villainous qualities.)

P.S. Faramir was not supposed to be weak like Boromir, he had the most character of anyone and was therefore my favorite: hence this little tirade. Kind of like most peoples reactions here to the change in Peter.

Liberty Hoffman: I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on, do you like the moral changes made to characters in these stories?

I am ok with the character flaws. I can't relate to perfect people. If you had perfect characters I think that would disconnect the audience from them. In the Bible, the only perfect person was Jesus. His followers were flawed, even His closest ones. As long as they get Aslan's part correct, I don't blame them for giving the characters some imperfections.

I realize I am one of the few, but I liked what they did with Peter and most of the changes in Prince Caspian. I was better able to learn from it than from the book. Peter did come around in the end and he learned great lessons about humility and waiting on Aslan's direction. I was very impressed the the Christian principles the unsaved were able to add into the film.

As for the thing with Susan and Caspian, I didn't see anything morally wrong with it. I wouldn't call it lust or anything, just a mild attraction that ended with a goodbye kiss because they would never see each other again.

I suppose that little scene with Peter giving Caspian Rhindon was meant to show us that Peter had straightened his act up, but I never felt convinced that he had even learned his lesson. He acted like a pouting little brat throughout the entire movie and I greatly disliked him by the end of the movie. They could have still had conflict between Caspian and Peter without making Peter so egotistical.

As for the thing with Susan and Caspian, I didn't see anything morally wrong with it. I wouldn't call it lust or anything, just a mild attraction that ended with a goodbye kiss because they would never see each other again.

So you think it's morally fine for girls to go around kissing on the lips guys that they're mildly attracted to just because they will never see them again? Wow, I hope no girl like that gets a "mild attraction" to me as I'm saving my first kiss on the lips for my wife on my wedding day. Yes, I'm old fashioned and thankful for it.

I agree with Brylowman, although your first kiss is said to be with the one you'll spend the rest of days with I also like the fact that when people kiss it's for the right reasons like you respect the person with all your heart and you feel committed to that person because you love them. Susan's reason's for kissing Caspian was merely impulsive action and in vain. By sticking to her character and getting over Narnia she would have ignored her temptations but instead she kept contradicting herself "Really is it that hard just to walk away?"

Not only did she satisfy herself but that simple peck will lead a guy on, especially it being a pity that this is probably Caspian's first kiss and it's from someone he'll never see again.

On to Peter he did seem a bit like a brat towards the end or maybe it was because he didn't want to leave again where he wasn't respected in his own world, but no I think he began to change when Peter had a talk with Lucy in the How. He was more friendly to Caspian by then too.

So you think it's morally fine for girls to go around kissing on the lips guys that they're mildly attracted to just because they will never see them again? Wow, I hope no girl like that gets a "mild attraction" to me as I'm saving my first kiss on the lips for my wife on my wedding day. Yes, I'm old fashioned and thankful for it.

you are not old fashioned, at least in my eyes on this topic! I don't like it when girls are 'mildly attracted' to men and flirt with them.....but I think (as much as I can't stand Suspian) that it gets the point across that Susan is heading the wrong way.
but I wish they hadn't had Susan and Caspian kiss.
IMO......