Unmarked thoughts

I wonder why I really love the Narnia movies compared to other book to screen movies.

Prince Caspian is a huge deviation from the novel, yet it doesn't make me rage in anger as much as I do with LotR or Earthsea.

Part of this I feel is that the director changes it for the better. To be completely frank, Prince Caspian the novel was not all that great a tale. Kids come in. Peter duels King. King dies. The End. (I'm being serious here; Caspian gets about as much screen time as Mr Tumnus) Whereas the embellishments of the movie actually turned these characters into 3d people rather than just a flat voice that performs certain actions.

The difference between why the director changes it is important. I really feel Adamson has this great love for the novel. He would say about Narnia: this is an amazing place and I'm going to make these jaded kids to see why Narnia was such an awesome book for my generation to read.

I hate LotR because its this huge massive wank for Jackson, who basically said: this is my vision of the novel - I'll chop off anything that doesn't fit. He disagreed with TOLKIEN'S characters and so rewrote his own.

Adamson, I feel, doesn't change so much as embellish - Peter is once again a child after living a decade or so as the High King. Edmund, who's life is brought with Aslan's blood, knows better than any the value of loyalty.

I think Susan is possibly the only one that diverts from Lewis's novel. But to be honest, she doesn't get much page time in Caspian - Adamson has to start showing hints of why she might choose to abandon Narnia. The idea of her not adjusting between worlds, further worsened by her knowledge that their time in Narnia won't last - Susan is wise, but I think she has been hurt, and badly.

Anyway; he left in that crap about Santa in the first film - if it was Jackson directing, the kids probably would have been given the weapon by some kind of dryad who looks like their mom so those psychoanalysts can have a field day.
Tags: ,