Cactus Game Design Message Boards

It was like watching a much worse, wanna be LOTR. I hated it, even though I liked the first one.

It was better than the first one in my opinion

Quote from: fireninja on December 19, 2008, 08:50:17 PM

It was like watching a much worse, wanna be LOTR. I hated it, even though I liked the first one.

So it was worse than eragon?

That......is impossible

I was talking about the movie

I really enjoyed the movie.  My only disappointment with it is that they just took the music from the first movie and put it in awkward parts.

I liked Prince Caspian, but I agree with Colin that the movie does not compare to the book (hardly any do). Unfortunately for the Chronicles, there are two huge stumbling blocks:

1. LotR came out first, so everyone will compare the two. The fact that both were written at the same time by members of the same literary group is irrelevant to the general public. People will simply say that Narnia copied the "attack of the trees" and the "river eating the bad guys on horses" from LotR. Being the first is the most important aspect of entertainment in today's world. The second is always viewed as a copy (i.e. I did not enjoy Wyatt Earp because I had already seen Tombstone the same year).

2. Disney does not have a vested interest in the Chronicles of Narnia other than money. I believe that Peter Jackson was a fan of the LotR books and therefore immersed himself into the production. Sure he made changes, but the movies did a wonderful job of drawing in the non-Tolkein crowd. Great acting certainly helps in that regard. However, the Disney producers seem to just be trying to tap into the genre hoping to make some quick money off the Lewis following and LotR astounding success. But without the love of the books and quality acting, Lewis' vision is lost. I realize that the acting is hurt by the fact that the stars are children, but that still prevents me from being drawn into the dilemma of a child who becomes a king and then becomes a child again and now has to be saving king. I also did not feel the conflict of Prince versus King in decision-making, but rather a boy who is overprotective of his sister.

I would still pay to see any of the Narnia movies because I loved the books. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was my favorite book, so I certainly hope that is the next movie. But I agree with the general sentiment that Prince Caspian was not a movie I would watch over and over again. Once was enough. If I want to visit Narnia again myself, I will just go to the bookshelf.

What upset me about it was that I enjoyed the first one, and the first one was pretty accurate to the book... and so they set a pretty high bar for themselves. When they failed, and added scenes that didnt even exist (overnight raid, anyone?), that upset me.

That's probably what Colin was alluding to in the original post, and I agree.

But like I said, I liked it as a cinematic experience.

Out of curiosity, would you pay to see it again in the movie theatre?

Out of curiosity, would you pay to see it again in the movie theatre?

The only movies I've payed to see more than once were Cloverfield and The Dark Knight.

Lately I've been seeing movies multiple times in theaters...mainly because there have been very few good movies since summer.

I believe Prince Caspian was realised as a book before 2 towers was, but nobody who hasn't read the books is going to look up their history. That's the only problem, otherwise it was a great movie. It really didn't follow the book, but I still really enjoyed the whole Castle Assult part.

Quote from: Lamborghini_diablo on December 21, 2008, 01:02:57 PM

The only movies I've payed to see more than once were Cloverfield and The Dark Knight.

Aladdin seven times, The Incredibles three times.  That's about it.

have kids? if not

I wasn't too excited about Prince Caspian really. It's just another movie in my mind. I think it gets way too much hype.