Really, was it too dark?

[daughter of the King]

"Darkness" is relative. What bothers one viewer will not bother another viewer. Based on the fact that a lot of viewers complained it was too dark, I would say yes, it was too dark. I personally don't think it was, but that does not impact what other viewers thought. The majority of the Narnia audience was not prepared or ready for a Narnia adaptation that was as dark as PC.

From the beginning of the movie, it was made clear that Peter's real conflict was with Aslan, not Caspian. That's why when Peter gives Caspian his sword, Peter's character arc isn't truly complete. We never get to see Peter resolve his 'Aslan dilemma' so, at the end of the movie, we're left with that feeling of wanting more.

Excellent point. I know a lot of people thought Peter's attitude in the movie made him more realistic and approachable than his character in the book, but I couldn't stand Peter. I found his attitude dreadfully tiresome and I think I would have liked him more if his quarrel with Aslan had been resolved. The first thing Peter says to Aslan in the book is "I'm sorry." Movie!Peter never had such a moment.

From the attempted murder of Caspian at the opening through to the end of the Night Raid, part of what makes you care about the characters is the darkness each is facing. Lighten the mood and you negatively impact the emotional involvement you feel.

I disagree. The only character I felt any emotional involvement with was Lucy. I think the audience should have been given a little bit more time to know Caspian before jumping right into him running away. I felt more angry at Peter after the Night Raid then sadness for the Narnians who died.

There is no moment where you read about the emotional loss of life like where you see Glenstorm nod farewell to his son who is about to die. No mention of carnage strewn about on the battlefield. In fact, Lewis brings some humor into the situation by talking about Wimbleweather's tears splashing on the mice (at least, I thought it was funny ).

You're not the only one. I think that's the key for why a lot of people think PC was too dark. Yes, Narnians die in the book, but it's glossed over. Much like the battle in Book!LWW is mostly told through flashback. That's not the important part of the story. The emotional journey of the characters is what is important, and that is heavily glossed over in the film. Neither Peter's nor Susan's arcs really felt complete, Edmund got very little development at all, and I wasn't given enough time to like Caspian to appreciate the end of his arc.


As for the romp, I really wish it had been kept in. It shows that restoring Narnia wasn't just about winning the war. The Telmarine people had to be freed from Miraz's rule just as much as the Narnians. As for it being a bit bizarre in the book, well, this is Bacchus and Silenus we're talking about. It could have been a lot more bizarre quite easily.

[Rilian The Disenchanted]

Chris Columbus would do a pretty good job too. He's used to working with kid actors and special effects. i prefer his Potter movies over the Yates one's. His are full of creatures and color.

[King_Erlian]

I loved the decision to change Prince Caspian from a boy into a young man.

Although I agree that it's not good that so-called kids' movies should be too nice, this was the one thing I really disliked about the movie of Prince Caspian. In the book we had the following scene:

"Now," said Peter, as they finished their meal, "Aslan and the girls (that's Queen Susan and Queen Lucy, Caspian) are somewhere close. We don't know when he will act. In his time, no doubt, not ours. In the meantime he would like us to do what we can on our own. You say, Caspian, we are not strong enough to meet Miraz in pitched battle?"

"I'm afraid not, High King," said Caspian. He was liking Peter very much, but was rather tongue-tied. It was much stranger for him to meet the great Kings out of the old stories than it was for them to meet him.

"Very well, then," said Peter, "I'll send him a challenge to single combat." No one had thought of this before.

"Please," said Caspian, "could it not be me? I want to avenge my father."

"You're wounded," said Peter. "And anyway, wouldn't he just laugh at a challenge from you? I mean, we have seen that you are a king and a warrior but he thinks of you as a kid."

But in the film, with Caspian grown up and (physically at least) older than Peter, this makes no sense. Why didn't Caspian fight against Miraz in single combat? For that matter, what was the point of the Pevensies coming to Narnia at all? Susan's horn was supposed to summon help, but it wasn't specifically designed to summon the four Pevensies out of our world. In the film, it looks like the only special help they provided was Edmund's electric torch.

[Nic5]

...
Onto the character of Peter. I know some people liked the way the filmmakers changed his character; they found it more realistic. But this change really affected the tone of the movie.
...
I could cite more examples as the list goes on and on, but the bottom line is Peter's negative attitude throughout the movie really affected it.

But the thing that made Prince Caspian a much darker movie than the book for me was that it was robbed of its joy. There was very little in the movie to contrast the dark parts that were in both the movie and the book.

For the record, with the exception of the character change to Peter, I thoroughly enjoyed PC for what it was. It was a very well-made fantasy movie! But for me, there's no question that the movie was darker than the book. .

Um, Peter's character in the movie makes a more sympathetic character out of Miraz, while he still remains a great villain, you can see his pov better in the movie through Peter & Caspian's own issues - they are both good guys in the movie but flawed. Peter has gone from High King in a golden age of a magical kingdom, which as Narnia fans we know from Horse & His Boy, he had acclaim from all over the surrounding lands about, to being a school kid who gets shoved around.

Even though he used it for good, part of the power he had has effected him for the worst. In the movie when he is not confronting issues of his lost life, he is still the same old Peter we meet in LW&W film. Caspian also, while a good noble guy, he has had an ignorant life of a Prince being served, & some of his noble traits are still that of getting his own way which come out in the film. I was disappointed that the arc of Caspian wasn't continued on from PC to VoTDT but it seems like they hardly watched or thought about the PC film when going to make VoTDT. Anyhow, in the movie it is shown the effect of different types of power on good guys, so that gives Miraz's total lust for power more depth in the film.

The joy of the resolution to this, in my view, is lost or watered down in the film because it's climax is botched. The Climax of this is really the trees turning up after the emotional duel - but this is negated by a somewhat deflating end battle who's only narrative point in the film is to be like Lord of The Rings - The Two Towers film; as it turned out this was a pointer into what was going to happen to the next Narnia film adaption.

[waggawerewolf27]

Um, Peter's character in the movie makes a more sympathetic character out of Miraz, while he still remains a great villain, you can see his pov better in the movie through Peter & Caspian's own issues - they are both good guys in the movie but flawed. Peter has gone from High King in a golden age of a magical kingdom, which as Narnia fans we know from Horse & His Boy, he had acclaim from all over the surrounding lands about, to being a school kid who gets shoved around.

Yes, I agree with you. But Peter's character as portrayed in the film does shed light on quite a few other issues and characters, not only Miraz and Edmund. Noticeably, in the film, Peter does get taken down a peg or two after his encounter with the White Witch. As is Caspian, himself.

There is one issue that isn't even covered in the book, though it is there implicitly, but which Adamson did tease out. This issue is how the prosperous and happy Narnia might feel once its leaders had vanished in much the same way as Jadis, herself. One day they were here, next they had gone, nobody knew where. Succession is a big issue in the world, even today, not just in states that are still monarchies, democratic or otherwise. And this is true in Narnia as well. Thus Nikabrik's attitude is more explained, that he would want to turn to the White Witch, who was around for 100 years, not just the 15 years of the Pevensie's monarchy. Apparently he missed the grand finale of the 1st Battle of Beruna, when the resurrected Aslan, in whom none of the Dwarfs believe, kills Jadis.

Miraz as a younger son does get explained a bit better when he is confronted by Edmund, whose goading is more responsible for Miraz's decision to duel than is the plotting of Sopespian. And also Caspian, representing his Old Narnians, might also have a point of view as well: Peter and the rest deserted Narnia in its need of strong leadership, leaving it open to the invasion of Telmarines. The boys of the book couldn't possibly have analysed these leadership issues, which are at the core of PC, but they would be apparent to the older teenagers of the film. Unfortunately, any adult analysis of leadership does tend to make a film darker, especially as people have conflicting ideas about it.

Caspian in both film and book has no choice about fighting Miraz. He has to flee Miraz now he is surplus to requirements after Miraz's baby is born. In the film I don't think we have the debate in which Trumpkin and Nikabrik argue about when the horn is to be used, which is when Trumpkin volunteers to go to Cair Paravel, nor do we have Peter, Edmund and Trumpkin turning up to rescue Caspian, Trufflehunter and Dr Cornelius. But at some points in the ensuing VDT, we should be asking ourselves, how like Miraz Caspian might be, despite himself. Yes, Caspian would need to show strong leadership when it is necessary, even to win, but what sort of strong leadership? Like Peter, defending Narnia against giants, or like Miraz, oppressing Narnia's first inhabitants and overtaxing its present citizens? Or like the White Witch, enslaving all her subjects in a 100 years' winter?

I think these aspects were well brought out in the film, but although it included a couple of aspects of the Narnia romp, such as the River God, and Susan and Lucy setting off after Aslan, I think that dwelling on the second battle of Beruna too much could not compensate for the absence of other features of it, such as Gwendolen and the teacher joyfully joining Aslan's procession.

Why didn't Caspian fight against Miraz in single combat?

I think that Caspian suggested it in the film, not because he was wounded, but because only the High King of Narnia, set above all Kings of Narnia, and the most respected King of Narnia there had been so far, was the only one with the authority to challenge Miraz' right to rule.

[Lady Galadriel]

It's been a while since I've posted in the GMD.

PC was definitely marketed as being intentionally darker than LWW. Generally speaking, it seems to me that sequels of first stories almost have to market themselves in a way to show that they've got something different to show than the first time around. The stakes have to be raised from what occurred in the first story. The filmmakers of PC made this clear with Trumpkin's line, "You may find Narnia a more savage place than you remember." It's a warning -- things are not going to be pretty.

Earlier posters in this thread are correct. In the book, Lewis glossed over the battles. He wrote his stories primarily for young children. Still, this doesn't mean that he wouldn't put in things that are frightening for young children. But even though he put in things that are scary, I don't think he wanted to be too detailed -- especially in the gory parts. The Stone Table scene in LWW is scary, but in my opinion he wrote it so skillfully -- especially the part when the girls had to cover their eyes, so that they did not see Aslan's death.

This is the same with the battles in Prince Caspian. Lewis was not afraid to write scary scenes, but even so, he kept any of the Narnia stories from becoming too overly gory. And in a book, he could do that -- it was fine to "gloss" over the battles and then tell the aftermath (such as Giant Wimbleweather's tears falling onto the mice). But exactly how does someone gloss over this when making a movie? Many moviegoers seem to want action, excitement, and a climax. But in PC, a series of battles took place. Each one drained Caspian's army worse. For the filmmakers to show a series of battles draining Caspian's army would have likely gotten long and tedious.

Thus, they came up with the castle night raid. I think the concept is genius (although I disagree with Peter's character role in the battle entirely). Battles aren't a pleasant matter, and the night raid showed the tense emotions pretty well. I have a very painful time watching it at all -- and shouldn't that be the point? In the book, the Old Narnian army loses terribly to Miraz, over and over again. The filmmakers accomplished this depth of despair with one battle.

All of this is not to say that I don't still believe that the movie could have had lighter parts added. You could take the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy for example. Countless parts are very dark and sad. Yet for the most part, there are also light parts which get their fair share of time -- parts that give a person hope when they think none remains. And that is very good indeed -- if there were no happy times, I don't know if I would ever be able to stand watching the LotR movies.

So while I do believe PC's movie was very dark at times -- and dark enough that I do not want to watch various parts -- it is still somewhat appropriate considering the original source material. But even then, certain shots were not completely necessary to make the point clear. (For example, we could have seen Peter's devastation at leaving behind the army, and Glenstorm's sad nod to his son, without having to see Edmund's final flyover.)

Something that I do believe and wish that the filmmakers could have done better was put in more happier scenes to help balance things out. They could have still shown the depths of despair, but the entire movie did not have to be violence and gore. They shouldn't gloss over the battles, but neither should they gloss over the magic and hope. This is certainly not what Lewis did. And after all, for me, it is the parts of magic and hope (that often occur during the midst of the sadness or right after it) which make the Narnia books so valuable and memorable.

I hope that made sense. It is rather complicated.

Edited

[PuddleCheep]

People may criticize me, but PC is my favorite Narnia film. Ironically, it's my least favorite of the books. Even though I love all of the Chronicles, PC's long narration with Trumpkin, the nearly one dimensional portrayals of Miraz and the 2 lords, and none of the freshness that the other books have, makes for a not very good story.

I think PC went in a lot of good directions (no, the Kiss was not one of them). The despair and darkness over all of old Narnia is visually displayed better in the movie and Miraz was shown as the true cruel tyrant he was. There was more character development for Lord Glozellel and Lord Sopespian. Even though I wasn't happy with Peter acting like a jerk, the castle raid is one of the best parts of the film series and the set design is epic.

I saw the movie for the first time with my siblings the year it came out. I was barely a teenager and both of my sisters were 11 and younger. We weren't really frightened at all, although the scene with Jadias is still quite chilling. If you understand that Narnia isn't a tame kid's fairy tale and has much more depth than people give the books credit for, you will think the movie is very dark.

My advice to those people who don't know the books and didn't like the amount of darkness in PC: don't watch The Last Battle when it comes out!