The Owl Footage is Not What it Seems
After seeing some reviews that seem to think Prince Caspian was some sort of Hamlet character, let me give my impression of him. Don't get me wrong, I like Caspian, but Caspian in Voyage of the Dawn Treader is the Caspian I really like. Here's why:
In Prince Caspian, Caspian is really a fairly flat character. He's a pleasant enough kid, but he's bland and honestly not really believable. When it's sprung on him that his father was actually murdered his reaction is more "oh, well then" rather than the righteous outrage or surprise you'd expect him to. The first thing he actually says after he finds out is "do you mean he wants to kill me now too" which is a rather bland (and surprisingly self centered, which is out of character) thing for someone to say when they find out their father's been murdered. From there on out, Caspian sort of just flows with things. He's young and inexperienced and sticking an untried 13 year old in charge of an army seems like a strange thing to do, but Caspian is a fairly passive character.
Meanwhile there's movie Caspian. This version is at least trying to be a character with some layers. He's a bit older, which would make sense for someone trying to raise a coup. His first reaction to finding out his father was murdered is the one you'd expect- righteous outrage. Also he makes it very apparent he doesn't know what he's doing. That's something that doesn't fit with the book character. You've got a 13 year old who just wanders into the role of king without even blinking and whose only had a modest amount of training. You'd think that Miraz wouldn't want a threat from Caspian therefore he's rather neglected. That doesn't fit right with his skills from the book. In the movie he's a decent fighter, but he's not really a fully trained warrior, nor is he a High King, which gives Peter a distinct advantage. Caspian knows what he's supposed to be, he just doesn't really know how. This is where Peter's characterization becomes a bit of a problem. In the book Pete was as pleasant and good humored as the first book. He and Caspian take to each other and become pretty good friends. This would have worked for the movie, but for some reason they decided to go with the Peter as jerk direction. I understand why Caspian doesn't challenge him more mainly because it's fairly obvious that Caspian doesn't really know HOW to challenge him. Caspian's never ruled and there is a lot of evidence that he was fairly isolated and neglected. He's probably lucky he got any training at all with Miraz in charge. If anything, in he book Susan is the bratty one who pitches a fit at several points and foreshadows that she's not going to be welcome in Narnia after a while. Peter in the book is always the same, steady, pleasant character he was before.
So here's where I find the movie characterization a better one. Caspian reacts like a human in it. He gets angry and is very unsure of himself, which makes him come across as wishy-washy, which he is but is understandable. I have more of a problem with Peter's characterization than Caspian's. Meanwhile I'm not sure why they decided to go with the weird reasoning for Peter fighting Miraz rather than Caspian. In the book Caspian doesn't because he's wounded. That would have made perfect sense in the movie too, but for some reason that they just vaguely sort of gloss over, Peter takes over, which still makes Caspian look secondary.
In Prince Caspian, Caspian is really a fairly flat character. He's a pleasant enough kid, but he's bland and honestly not really believable. When it's sprung on him that his father was actually murdered his reaction is more "oh, well then" rather than the righteous outrage or surprise you'd expect him to. The first thing he actually says after he finds out is "do you mean he wants to kill me now too" which is a rather bland (and surprisingly self centered, which is out of character) thing for someone to say when they find out their father's been murdered. From there on out, Caspian sort of just flows with things. He's young and inexperienced and sticking an untried 13 year old in charge of an army seems like a strange thing to do, but Caspian is a fairly passive character.
Meanwhile there's movie Caspian. This version is at least trying to be a character with some layers. He's a bit older, which would make sense for someone trying to raise a coup. His first reaction to finding out his father was murdered is the one you'd expect- righteous outrage. Also he makes it very apparent he doesn't know what he's doing. That's something that doesn't fit with the book character. You've got a 13 year old who just wanders into the role of king without even blinking and whose only had a modest amount of training. You'd think that Miraz wouldn't want a threat from Caspian therefore he's rather neglected. That doesn't fit right with his skills from the book. In the movie he's a decent fighter, but he's not really a fully trained warrior, nor is he a High King, which gives Peter a distinct advantage. Caspian knows what he's supposed to be, he just doesn't really know how. This is where Peter's characterization becomes a bit of a problem. In the book Pete was as pleasant and good humored as the first book. He and Caspian take to each other and become pretty good friends. This would have worked for the movie, but for some reason they decided to go with the Peter as jerk direction. I understand why Caspian doesn't challenge him more mainly because it's fairly obvious that Caspian doesn't really know HOW to challenge him. Caspian's never ruled and there is a lot of evidence that he was fairly isolated and neglected. He's probably lucky he got any training at all with Miraz in charge. If anything, in he book Susan is the bratty one who pitches a fit at several points and foreshadows that she's not going to be welcome in Narnia after a while. Peter in the book is always the same, steady, pleasant character he was before.
So here's where I find the movie characterization a better one. Caspian reacts like a human in it. He gets angry and is very unsure of himself, which makes him come across as wishy-washy, which he is but is understandable. I have more of a problem with Peter's characterization than Caspian's. Meanwhile I'm not sure why they decided to go with the weird reasoning for Peter fighting Miraz rather than Caspian. In the book Caspian doesn't because he's wounded. That would have made perfect sense in the movie too, but for some reason that they just vaguely sort of gloss over, Peter takes over, which still makes Caspian look secondary.