PC was a great movie and I found nothing wrong. The changes from the book were fine with me because the parts they left out and changed were some of my least favorite parts.

Take susan in battle for example, in the book her and Lucy were having a wonderful time galavanting across the country while the boys risked there lives in serious battle. (I'm not being critical here....I hate being critical beucase I love Narnia). I think it added more danger and suspense when you had Susan in battle.

The night raid was a good add. In the book Caspian did a small attack but failed becuase Wimble Weather charged at the wrong time. I loved the way Andrew flushed it out. The battles made it better. My Dad likes PC so much better then LWW beucase of all the action. Remember PC was, and still is, one of the LEAST liked books. I liked, as I did the others I've read. I only read PC once I heard they were making the movie. I only finished it after I watched it in theaters.

I think PC was good. It grossed a lot of money and I think people pretty much liked it. Some people don't, but you can find plenty of people out there that do. These are just all my own opinions and I'm not trying in ANY way to be rude.

I liked the characters attitude and diaologe. Susan didn't speak much, but to me that was good. I think she is a gentle and quiet Queen. Peter's attitude didn't bother me and was fixed after the night raid. The kiss and romance I completely fell in love with after I watched it. You could probably call me a non Narnia book purest. I just take the movies as they come. I enjoy what's there. ( I'm not being rude....really I'm not trying to be.... )

Takes a long breath.) As it being compared to HP. Narnia is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better. Harry potter has sorcery and toooooooo much magic. My mother won't let me watch the movies OR read the books and I don't want to. There is too much magic in my opinion. ( I'm not slamming any one here! ) It's just my own thoughts.

As for Eragon. My brother is a Eragon purest. He has read the books and I've read the first and half of the second. The movie didn't go along with it really at all, but it wasn't bad. I like the movie as a good fantasy movie. It didn't stay true to the book but I didn't care. i like the book and the movie.

WellI think I've said what I wanted to, I'm trying to slam any one!!!! And I wasn't being critical...I don't like doing that.

Actually, there's about as much magic in Eragon as there is in Harry Potter. And Harry Potter never slaughters dozens of soldiers with magic a few dozen pages after acting like a total wuss over killing a rabbit.

I hate to contradict everyone, but the HP movies aren't really that great an adaptation. Sure they've stuck to the basic framework of the story, refraining from adding anything like non-canon romance, but they've sacrificed some key details along the way. I've not seen the newest one yet, but I've heard they left all the stuff about the Horcruxes, which is kind of vital to the next movie. And I'd hate to watch them without any knowledge of the books or access to a HP fan.

the horcruxes are going to be explained in Deathly Hallows which will be hade in two installments. the latest movie focused on riddle at hogwarts and slughorn.

PC is a great book. But extremely uncinematic....

The PC movie being mediocre was inevitable. Actually, I take that back. The PC movie being a total disaster was inevitable..... and yet the filmmakers somehow found a way to beat the odds and make a decent PC film.

The book is so uncinematic that I was always very worried about the movie. Even before the LWW movie came out, I was thinking "Gosh, what the heck are they going to do about PC?" The movie turned out to be a lot better than what I was expecting. Considering the impossible challenge they had of adapting this book, I think they did a great job.

For that reason, you can't write off the series because of PC. PC was always the most problematic of the series (except for LB perhaps). Now that PC is out of the way (phew!), we can get to the books that actually have movie potential.

I predict the average NarniaWebber will like VDT more than PC.

gP, I agree whole-heartedly with you! I mean, I am a HP fan as well, but Narnia has always been my favourite! And we're only two movies in!!! HP is on number 6, so its been around for a while, and people know the story, EVERYONE knows the story!

PC wasn't even that bad of a movie, as I really thouroughly enjoyed it! I like LWW better, but I still recon that Narnia has EONS of potentional. VDT is a seriously cinematic book, and I'm am willing to bet that HP 71/2 is going to have some serious competition come December 2010!

Lover of Narnia said:"The night raid was a good add. In the book Caspian did a small attack but failed becuase Wimble Weather charged at the wrong time. I loved the way Andrew flushed it out."

Caspian didn't attack the castle! He attacked Miraz's army. I hate how they 'flush things out' in movies, because that occasions: 1, less time for what was REALLY in the story, and 2, because there is usually no precedence for it. Reepicheep and his mice wanted to attack Miraz's castle, but nothing more was said of it after that. Why? Because it would be a mad thing to do. I think that Peter had been king for long enough (17 years, wasn't it?) to be able to figure out that it was a stupid thing to do. He was a completely different boy in PC, and much less mature than in LWW. Does that make sense? He should be MORE MATURE in PC, but he acts like a spoiled brat: an older Eustace, maybe, with the added advantage of being not only King, but High King.

If you want to see it not Fleshed out (not flushed, sorry), watch the reduced version that the BBC did. They didn't show any of the small fights Caspian's army had with Miraz, just mentioned them - even less mentioned than in the book. It was rather unsatisfactory. On the other hand, not being wildly into war and fighting tales, I have often tended to skim over the battle sequences in books. Others, on the other hand, tend to build them up in their minds as they read.

i guess i am in agreemen with you, Laura E.A., i mean i don't want the films to be exactly like the books (that would destroy the purpose of the movie, as Peter Dinklage said) i didn't really mind the nigt raid, it would have been all right if Peter hadn't flipped out at Caspian afterwards, like i know they wanted to raise the tension between them but they did it in the wrong way (actually the whole idea sucked). what i'm trying to say about Harry Potter is that the movies seem to have very good characterization, despite the fact that a lot of stuff gets left out, but who can blame them all the book are like 600 pages, the writers are true to the characters of HP and that is what i think the writers of Narnia need to learn from, if there are no HUGE changes to the story i'm happy, as long as the characters i love aren't screwed up.

To be honest, I've never read any of the HP books, but I have seem movies 1-4. So in comparison, I will only use the movies. HP has one common thread among each of them especially 1-3: Harry, Ron, and Hermonie being rebellious and getting praised for it at the end of the movie. They continuously break the rules and are justified by doing a good deed. On the other side, in LWW, Edmund's treachery is to be punished by death. Clear and stark contrasts in the approach to dealing with authorities.

In terms of acting, Narnia has the best complete cast of child actors I have ever seen. Skandar and Georgie will always beat Daniel, Rupert, and Emma in terms of thier acting. The HP actors certainly have gotten better as they have aged, but Skandar and Georgie started out as excellent actors. You knew Skandar was Edmund and Georgie was Lucy. You often don't even see that with adult actors.

Cinemetography is where the two are pretty much even. I liked HP1 more than the others and two scenes stood out to me: the Quiddich game and the Wizard's Chess game. Narnia in LWW felt real, like the place really existed. The only exception was the painting view when the Beavers show Peter, Susand, and Lucy thier path after escaping their hut.

Nothing in the HP soundtracks stood out to me, but Williams has done an excellent job with the Narnia score. Narnia's score isn't epic or something you can just listen to over and over again, but it completes the movie. It keeps you in the movie while not just getting you hyped up with the sound piece. And mind you, I love a good epic musical piece (ie Duel of the Fates in SWI and Super Burly Brawl in Matrix 3). But in a movie's context, Narnia has an excellent soundtrack.

And to make things even better for Narnia, the best of the books have yet to be adapted. I loved PC for the swordplay, but little else. I am very excited about the rest of the series. For HP, I'd catch them if on TV, but that's it.

i can kind of see where you are coming from but if you read the HP book you would see that the rules that were broken always end up with a consequence of some kind. in the third book Harry, Ron, and Hermione, go out at night to the Shrieking Shack and after all is said and done they lose their favorite teacher has to leave, but they proved the innocence of a man who was falsely imprisoned for twelve years (though not until three books later).
also in the fifth book, Harry disobeys professors Snape and Dumbledore in practicing his occlemency and in the end he breaks rules and his Godfather (a mixture of a fatherly and brotherly character) is killed because of his disobedience. there are countless ways that they break rules but there are also countless ways where there are consequences.

i will say that i agree with you about Skander being a good actor but i think Georgie's perfomance in PC wasn't as good as it was in LWW. the difernce between the Narnia and HP child actors is that they have turned into quite good adult actors, they're not fantastic but Daniel Radcliffe is much better actor than Ben Barnes and maybe even better than Skander (the two are about the same age). Radcliffe has always played his character well in all six movies, he was cast for Harry because he was Harry but he is more than that now. the same can be said for Tom Felton, the actor who plays Draco Malfoy, his performance in the last movie was SUPERB.

Narnia still has a way to go but i think HP and Narnia will come out equal in the end. i can't wait to see how Narnia does in the end though, PC was definetly a flop. i love Narnia and i love HP equally i want to encourage you to read the books, i think you'll see my point of view then.

To be honest, I've never read any of the HP books, but I have seem movies 1-4. So in comparison, I will only use the movies. HP has one common thread among each of them especially 1-3: Harry, Ron, and Hermonie being rebellious and getting praised for it at the end of the movie. They continuously break the rules and are justified by doing a good deed. On the other side, in LWW, Edmund's treachery is to be punished by death. Clear and stark contrasts in the approach to dealing with authorities.

What about Draco Malfoy in these movies? Are you saying he is a model of obedience to authority? Did you notice if he got rewarded for some of the wrong things he does?

Yes, Hermione, Ron and Harry do break rules. Most notably in the first book when they broke bounds to help Hagrid dispose of Norbert humanely. I notice that in that book they got caught and had to serve detention, losing their house a massive amount of points into the bargain. One of the things I enjoyed most about Philosopher's Stone, especially the film, is that Draco, the so-called good, obedient to authority antagonist, also gets punished - spectacularly. Whilst I agree that the HP movies left out key bits which weakened the storylines, most notably in Prisoner of Azkaban, I think I could forgive the first movie lots when Professor McGonagall not only punished the Gryffindors, but also included Draco, who had been breaking rules, himself, whilst snooping around to try to get them into trouble.

And although after their 'rule breaking' in defeating Quirrell's attempt on the Philosopher's Stone, Harry, Ron and Hermione do end up being rewarded by the reinstatement of all the points they lost Gryffindor over Norbert, it is Neville Longbottom's ten points for showing the courage to stand up to friends to stop their 'rule breaking' which clinches Gryffindor's victory, not Harry, Ron or Hermione.

If you were to read the books, you will see how Harry does get punished for his wrong-doings - detentions, loads of them. Often it is the detentions and the times he is scolded, which drive the story home, not the approval of wrong-doing. And it all depends on what sort of authority it is. Whether it is fair authority or biased authority, which picks on people because they come from the wrong side of the tracks.

I am not so convinced that Edmund gets punished for rebelling against Aslan, a good authority. It is rather because he chose to fall in with the White Witch, but not to her specifications that he gets punished. Much as Draco might find it difficult to complete the task set for him by Voldemort without consequences to his parents and himself. There is quite a similarity between some aspects of Draco, and Edmund in LWW. As in HP there are consequences of course for Edmund's betrayal of his siblings, and it is Aslan who pays them for Edmund. And while you consider Harry, Ron and Hermione to be rebellious teenagers, and yes, in Order of the Phoenix, they most certainly rebel against Umbridge's Nazi-like regime, what do you make of Caspian's rebellion against Miraz? Should he have knuckled under, had nothing to do with the 'Old Narnians' and meekly surrendered to Miraz's hatchet men? Of course not. There wouldn't have been a story at all, not even in book form.

Actually I liked the last PC film, and agree that it was a vast improvement on the BBC version. Nor did the PC film alterations worry me all that much. I've seen worse alterations in the HP movies. Like the storming of the Burrow in the last movie, the shrunken heads in POA or the extended dragon sequence in GOF. I'm not so sure about glumPuddle's prediction that the 'average Narniawebber will like VDT better than PC. It all depends on how good a film they make. Also, the BBC version of VDT was heaps better than the BBC version of PC.

the horcruxes are going to be explained in Deathly Hallows which will be hade in two installments. the latest movie focused on riddle at hogwarts and slughorn.

I most certainly hope so. Although we did get a good look at the Peverell ring, which was one of the horcruxes, I, too, was disappointed that the others weren't shown, even though the film HBP does portray Harry hiding his potions book.

*puts on mod hat*

Please don't start a squabble over the morality of Harry Potter vs. the morality of Narnia again. We've been over this before; if you want to discuss the morality of fantasy literature, take it to Narnia & Christianity or the CRaP thread in the Spare Oom.

And now back to your regular scheduled discussion ...

Ok will try to remember that. I do tend to forget....

Narnia still has a way to go but i think HP and Narnia will come out equal in the end. i can't wait to see how Narnia does in the end though, PC was definetly a flop.

No it wasn't really as much of a flop as people think. That is where I really could get annoyed. It is only Disney that thought so, and Disney has always been just a mite too up itself through producing a heap of bowdlerised cartoon adaptations of well known fairy tales and literary classics that don't demand much of people's thinking power, and also drag in adoring crowds a mile a minute.

Of course, cartoon characterisations at a fraction of the price of proper films have always been Disney's strength. And I suppose it galled them that a few months after PC's release, a cheapie production like Wall-E could do a long way better than Prince Caspian in box-office sales with a thin, vaguely sentimental plotline about the environment, married to a romantic situation, every bit as nauseatingly cutesy as 'the kiss', no actors to be paid, and a lot of tellingly clever sound effects.

In one sense Disney could have been right to be annoyed. In undertaking Chronicles of Narnia it probably hoped to at least equal Warner's success in undertaking the HP series, or Peter Jackson's efforts with the earlier LOTR series, and got annoyed when it didn't. But PC did a long way better than the bulk of movies ever produced, which are lucky to make it into the top 300, let alone the top 100, regardless of their budgets.

In fact, PC the film was as good as that movie was likely to be, and maybe it is time to recognise that possibility and move on. As glumPuddle said earlier, PC could have been a long sight worse. The BBC production left so much out that in the end it became little more than a prelude for VDT. And I agree with those who think that PC would have been difficult to adapt to film, especially when at least a third of the book is pure exposition at Cair Paravel.

What worries me most about VDT is that in the box office it will have to compete, not only with those films to be released at the time, including HP Deathly Hallows, but also with fans' comparisons with the BBC production of VDT, as well as their perceptions of the book. I do hope it turns out well, and that we can progress to Silver Chair.

sorry about that Bookwyrm.
i'm in complete agreement with you waggawerewolf27, the movies leave out a lot of key evidence about Harry, Ron, and Hermione's punishments.

aside from that i guess i shouldn't say PC was a flop, but i didn't enjoy it as much as LWW, it didn't feel quite as magical, i really felt that Lucy is non longer the Lucy in LWW, i know this sounds strange but she seams to have lost some of her innocence, i can't really describe it, but there is just something different about her in PC that i don't really like.

Peter was terrible. i'll leave it at that. Caspian was okay, Edmund was good but he go left out, he needed a bigger role. Susan looked desperate, i really didn't like her character, but it lead up well to the fact that she stops believing. Reepicheep was amazing and maybe even the best acted character. Miraz was good. Trufflehunter and Nikkabrik were good. i need to stop though, i'm starting to go into one of my scene by scene review. lol

Well, there is no reason to worry about Peter's character anyway, since the High King doesn't feature in any of the next four Narnia stories until the very last book. I thought Anna Popplewell did well as Susan in PC, whether people liked her character or not. She would be a believable adult Susan in HHB, if it ever gets made, as I most certainly hope it will. Anna Popplewell's PC Susan would have been just the sort of character to get herself out of her depth in a romance with someone like Rabadash, don't you think?

I thought that PC film Lucy tended to come across in as a bit self-righteous. Perhaps that is what you meant by not liking her as much in PC as LWW. But that might have been a part of her book character, as well. And I agree with you that Edmund's part in PC was really good. That bit where he delivers his message to Miraz really makes the film.

Perhaps of the Narnia series PC may be compared later on with Prisoner of Azkaban of the HP series. The film adaptation was not really as good as it could have been in an otherwise phenomenally popular series, with heaps of key information just left out. The first three books of the HP series aren't all that long, in sharp contrast to the last four books, so the length of the book shouldn't have been a problem. And I agree that more than one Quidditch scene per book is a bit much to handle.

But the film's cutting out the fact that Harry eventually helped his team win the tournament, despite losing both the first game and his broom, lost much of the book's appeal. And the handling of the explanation of the Marauders' friendship was just horrible. There was no mention that it was Lupin who made the Marauders' Map, not to mention how Sirius knew that Peter Pettigrew was at Hogwarts. If they had just stuck up that newspaper clipping in the Shrieking Shack it would have at least clarified that point in the film.

And because Harry's two illicit visits to Hogsmeade are compacted into the one visit, and Harry is merely caught out of bed after lights out, we don't really get the significance of Snape's catching him out of bounds, how Harry bluffed his way out of it, or the contrast between Snape's telling Harry off and the way Lupin also told him off. Somehow, Harry being caught out of bed after lights-out has nowhere near the same impact as Harry nearly being caught visiting Hogsmeade that second time. After all you don't need a permission note to visit the bathroom, now do you?