MovieChat Forums > The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) Discussion > The hypocrisy

The hypocrisy

posted 15 years ago by millenia
8 replies | jump to latest

I started watching this film expecting a great fantasy adventure. It started out pretty good but I just couldn't understand all the killing. They could have just put a couple of mouse assassins to the king and be over with it.

Yeah, it's not okay to kill. It's not okay to kill the murderous, treacherous, oppressing king that is driving the narnians to extinction but it is okay to kill hundreds and hundreds of his men and narnians while "fighting bravely". There were several occassions where they could have got rid of the mad king but no, instead they choose to kill all his men, who are only following orders because they have to.

And then never listening Lucy... that is just so Mulder and Scully already. She seems to be ALWAYS right, but for some reason instead of listening to her Peter wants to charge the castle and go kill people. Yay Peter! That attack for the castle was the most incredible one really. They could have killed/caught the king but instead they run out to kill all his (rather innocent) men again.

I am fairly certain this isn't as absurd in the books - at least I hope so. I almost didn't finish this film because it just sucked so bad with all the high morals "no, we will not kill him" and after 15 seconds they behead another 20 of regular soldiers.

Only thing good about this film was the cute animals, especially the mouse that actually managed to be funny instead of irritating. And perhaps Prince Caspian wasn't too bad to look at.

[–] pixen_marre 15 years ago

My thoughts exactly.

This was just depressing, with all the unnecessary slaughtering of people and animals. It was as if a solid plot wasn't at all important compared to the special effects and fight-scenes...
Haven't read the book but I sure hope it has a stronger story and that it's better at explaining things than this film was, because this was just sad. Too bad, 'cause I really liked the first Chronicles-film.

[–] RbSnedlap 15 years ago

So, by your reckoning all the the Narnians have to do is say to the HUGE army facing them after Miraz is killed, "OK your king is dead, you can all surrender now".
Actually, under the rules of the duel THE NARNIANS HAD WON, the battle happens because most of the other Telmarines think exactly the same way that Miraz does and are just willing to follow the next ambitious tyrant that comes along no matter what (Sopaspian).
In the end, unlike the first film its not so much that you have an entirely evil being running things at the top thats the problem. Its the entire political system and the war machine that supports it that they are dealing with. Killing Miraz achieves nothing, somebody else just as bad takes over.

That attack for the castle was the most incredible one really. They could have killed/caught the king but instead they run out to kill all his (rather innocent) men again.

Would you mind explaining just how you get him OUT of the castle and away from his men so you can kill him in the first place?
With Peter`s plan they are at least attacking where Miraz isn`t expecting it, elsewhere his security is going to be even tighter.
They actually come very close to pulling it off, if Caspian had pushed just a bit harder with his sword he would have cut Miraz`s throat and killed him then and there.

Oh, and Lucy had been sent a prophetic dream by the local God/Jesus equivalant. OF COURSE she is always going to be right, serves the others right for not listening at first.

"Any plan that involves loosing your hat is a BAD plan.""

[–] millenia 15 years ago

No I am not saying that it would have been "cut the king's head" and then it would be over. (Though you never know, Prince Caspian would have been the next in line and they just might have accepted him calmly.) But I don't understand how they always felt that it was somehow wrong to kill the king but it was completely okay to slaughter all the innocent people that are basically just following orders. "We will be honorable and not kill this man" and then BAM! Let's go slaughter another hundred of row soldiers!

And in the castle they already had a knife on his throat but Peter had to come all teary there "no we can't kill him" after they had just slaughtered all the watchmen. So the attack was pretty damn lame if the goal of it never even was to kill the king. If it's really so pink that they can't kill the king, they still could have snatched him away with the gryphons or something but the honorary code seems to be that you can't touch royalty while you can kill as many regulars as you ever wish.

[–] RbSnedlap 15 years ago

Though you never know, Prince Caspian would have been the next in line and they just might have accepted him calmly.

Actually we DO know, at the end of the duel Miraz is defeated, has been spared by both Peter and Caspian though that wound inflicted by Peter would likely to have been fatal eventually unless Lucy used her cordial on him.
Under the rules agreed on by both sides beforehand, the Narnians have the victory and Caspian is the lawful Telmarine king so honorably by their own rules they should lay down their weapons at that point.
Instead they chose to follow Sopespian and attack.
From then on throughout most of the battle it looks like its mainly the Narnians that are getting slaughtered by a ruthless, disciplined enemy determined to wipe them all out.

And in the castle they already had a knife on his throat but Peter had to come all teary there "no we can't kill him" after they had just slaughtered all the watchmen.

I just dont understand where you are getting all this woolly headed rubbish from.

The sequence of events in the version of the movie I have on DVD is this,

1)Miraz in his bedroom wakes up to find Caspian with a sword at his throat accusing him of murdering his father.
2)Queen Pruneprismia wakes up and Miraz, sensing Caspians hesitation starts to `takes charge` of the situation and almost dares Caspian to kill him, knowing that Caspian has never killed anyone in his life and probably has moral qualms about doing so. Meanwhile Pruneprismia makes a grab for a crossbow, creating a `mexican standoff` situation.
3)Miraz starts working on Pruny to get her to shoot but before she does so the Pevensies burst in, Susan gets the drop on Pruny and Peter spots Caspian and shouts at him "What are you doing here, you are supposed to be at the gatehouse?".
4)Miraz finishes his `working` of Pruny. She screams in frustration, shoots and wings Caspian as Miraz dives for a side door in the confusion.
He makes it to the door and dives through it just as Susan`s arrow thuds in to it just above his head as he runs off to sound the alarm.

I don`t see any teary "no we Can`t kill him" from Peter in any of that, just a "what the ---- are you doing here` question at Caspian.
Incidently, using the word `slaughtered` implies the sentries are totally harmless, they are actually all armed with swords and crossbows and will have standing orders to shoot and kill any intruders and sound the alarm.
Its a kill or be killed situation with them, they have to be neutralised quickly and silently and I`m afraid killing them is the only way that it could be done.

"Any plan that involves loosing your hat is a BAD plan.""

[–] A_Bob 15 years ago

"I am fairly certain this isn't as absurd in the books - at least I hope so."

In the book, there is no raid of the castle. The battles that are described before the Pevensies arrive are all being lost by Caspian's forces. The Pevensies come and Peter immediately stopped the fighting by challenging Miraz to a duel.

As for not listening to Lucy, it is also the same in the books, although the only time she says anything is the gorge scenes where she sees Aslan and no one but Edmund thinks they should go that way. She then has to convince them in the early morning hours to follow her down the gorge. They meet up with Aslan right after leaving the gorge the second time. Neither she nor Susan are there with their brothers in Aslan's How doing any planning.

Bob

[–] TheManInOil 15 years ago

By this argument, all wars should be fought by assassination rather than open battle. I suppose nazi soldiers also were 'just following orders'?

Soldiers have declared their allegiances and know they may be called upon to fight and risk death. Any soldier who fights for an evil ruler deserves what he gets.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

[–] Holkospinner 15 years ago

By this argument, all wars should be fought by assassination rather than open battle. I suppose nazi soldiers also were 'just following orders'?

Er, yes, they were, just like the soldier on the other side. Are you stupid or what? You think you just go and say, nah, I'm not going to fight in a political system like that? Jeez...

Soldiers have declared their allegiances and know they may be called upon to fight and risk death. Any soldier who fights for an evil ruler deserves what he gets.

You are indeed dump. May grandfathers certainly didn't deserve death nor did my stepfather who was called up when he was 15 years old in the last weeks of the war, you *beep* Try to think a little bit less black and white and educate yourself. I hope you never get into the same situation those German soldiers were in. Or the Americans who slaughtered Vietnamese women and children. Or like in the US in the 60ties and earlier when you were a n***** lover when you didn't agree with the racism and had to howl with the wolves to not get attacked youself.

[–] nomen_meltdown 14 years ago

Yeah, it's not okay to kill. It's not okay to kill the murderous, treacherous, oppressing king that is driving the narnians to extinction but it is okay to kill hundreds and hundreds of his men and narnians while "fighting bravely". There were several occassions where they could have got rid of the mad king but no, instead they choose to kill all his men, who are only following orders because they have to.

I don't find this quite cogent. The "murder, oppression, and extinction" of the Narnians wasn't being carried out by the king single-handedly. It was done by the Telmarine army, willingly carrying out their orders. If they found murder and oppression objectionable they could have been tanners or basket weavers or something other than soldiers. If they enlisted in their army expecting 20 years of uneventful guard duty and then their conscience rightly objected the first time they were instructed to slaughter innocent natives of the land their people had invaded, they could have resigned or deserted out of conscience. Given that, every Telmarine soldier who remained with that army and knowingly "murdered and oppressed" the Narnians was complicit with their king. So if he was a bad enough guy to kill in order to set things right, then his men were bad enough to kill.

Besides that argument for moral responsibility there's also the practical matter that Miraz wasn't some lone, aberrant tyrant; he was at the top of a hierarchy of corruption- his betrayal by his #2 demonstrates that. So assuming that his assassination would have seen Caspian installed as king without contest or plotting seems naive; whatever crony was waiting to bump off Miraz would have simply waited to bump of Caspian, and then there'd still be whoever was waiting to bump that guy off in turn. The corruption appeared systematic, they were descended from pirates after all. Their whole social ethic was about 'taking what you want.' Taking by force was the Telmarine status-quo. They took Narnia. Miraz took the crown. The targeting killing of Miraz to elevate Caspian wouldn't have ushered in some era of stability overnight. Frankly, if Aslan hadn't shown up and the Narnians had defeated the Telmarines simply through superior strategy, and Caspian had become king through force of arms instead of 'divine sanction,' then the Telmarine state in Narnia would probably have reverted to form in no time. Some ambitious underling would have had Caspian assassinated and they'd be back to square one.

In both cases, the main point is that whether it starts at the top or the bottom, corruption in a hierarchy rarely stays put. If it starts at the top it trickles down as corrupt leaders provide a corrupt role model; if it starts at the bottom it creeps upward as dishonourable underlings ascend the ranks by whatever means necessary. Either way, you don't overturn the whole corrupt regime just by decapitating it. The change that the protagonists wanted probably couldn't have come about any way other than the way it did: defeat (better yet, kill) the corrupt king, and his corrupt right-hand man, and weaken the corrupt institution's army by heavy casualties in battle, and shock and awe the rest with a display of overwhelming power, and- finally- have Aslan announce "this is the new king, because I'm god, bitches, and I say so." Remove any of those elements-- keep the corrupt king, keep the corrupt general, keep a large and corruption-riddled army, or have Caspian take over without the hand/paw of Aslan on his shoulder-- and it wouldn't have stuck. It's unfortunate but-- within the narrative-- consistent.

I'm an island- peopled by scientists, bards, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars, & warrior-poets.