Yeah, I ended up getting to a bad place emotionally during the course of the movie. And I agree, part of this is a lack of agency pet peeve, but that's only part of this, and not really the major part. As I perceived it subjectively, the morality and anti-industrialism were what really upset me, although that may be shaped by annoyance about the rest.
It's hard to tell what the timing was. Prince Caspian was published in 1951, a few years before The Two Towers (1954), but of course the Lord of the Rings was developed over an extended period of time before its publication. So it is difficult, without a lot more research, to figure out how the cross-polination of ideas worked. Still, I think that my end conclusion is that the scenes in the movie version of the Lord of the Rings are cooler and work better for me than the similar scenes in the movie version of Prince Caspian. I haven't read the book of Prince Caspian in too long to comment on the written forms, and based on Orichalcum's assessment of the movie's honesty to the book, I don't much want to.
Tolkien hated Narnia. I doubt he had any direct influence. Also, tLotR was effectively done by 1949. The publication was held up by publishing shenanigans and Tolkien's taking about a year to type the ms.
(How's that for a 'the world has changed' moment? A college professor sixty years ago, couldn't type.)
PC was written in, I think, 1949–1950, so it would have been composed after the main writing of tLorR was done. I expect much of Narnia seems familiar because Lewis and Tolkien were drawing on the same sources rather than explicit contact or pilfering.
As far as the movie goes, I'm not that bothered by the similarities to tLotR. It's only natural. And Peter the Moronic got a raw deal in the movie. He's not nearly so bad in the book. For one thing, the whole castle strike is made up from whole cloth. It's not in the book at all.
In fact, IIRC, the book does better address some of your moral qualms. I don't remember if a battle ever takes place, but if it does, it's entirely through the agency of the Telmarines. Peter's duel is not a delaying tactic, but an attempt to stop the war. If Miraz loses, the Telmarines have no reason to fight, since Caspian is the rightful king. And Miraz loses because he's killed treacherously (as in the movie), but there's no mercy scene. He slips and Lord Sopespian stabs him. Then the battle is about to start but Aslan puts an end to it, with Lucy and Susan's help. So I suppose he's a little more effable in the book, though the theme of needing God's agency is still there.
Coming into this kind of late since I just saw the movie a couple days ago, but I must say I enjoyed it, despite Adam's qualms (though I acknowledge those problems). I would like to point out, in relation to The Two Towers that popular opinion has it that Treebeard is supposed to evoke C.S. Lewis personally, especially the very slow method of talking. So I think there is clearly cross pollination of some ideas, though it's hard to put a finger on the specifics.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
It's hard to tell what the timing was. Prince Caspian was published in 1951, a few years before The Two Towers (1954), but of course the Lord of the Rings was developed over an extended period of time before its publication. So it is difficult, without a lot more research, to figure out how the cross-polination of ideas worked. Still, I think that my end conclusion is that the scenes in the movie version of the Lord of the Rings are cooler and work better for me than the similar scenes in the movie version of Prince Caspian. I haven't read the book of Prince Caspian in too long to comment on the written forms, and based on Orichalcum's assessment of the movie's honesty to the book, I don't much want to.
(no subject)
(How's that for a 'the world has changed' moment? A college professor sixty years ago, couldn't type.)
PC was written in, I think, 1949–1950, so it would have been composed after the main writing of tLorR was done. I expect much of Narnia seems familiar because Lewis and Tolkien were drawing on the same sources rather than explicit contact or pilfering.
As far as the movie goes, I'm not that bothered by the similarities to tLotR. It's only natural. And Peter the Moronic got a raw deal in the movie. He's not nearly so bad in the book. For one thing, the whole castle strike is made up from whole cloth. It's not in the book at all.
In fact, IIRC, the book does better address some of your moral qualms. I don't remember if a battle ever takes place, but if it does, it's entirely through the agency of the Telmarines. Peter's duel is not a delaying tactic, but an attempt to stop the war. If Miraz loses, the Telmarines have no reason to fight, since Caspian is the rightful king. And Miraz loses because he's killed treacherously (as in the movie), but there's no mercy scene. He slips and Lord Sopespian stabs him. Then the battle is about to start but Aslan puts an end to it, with Lucy and Susan's help. So I suppose he's a little more effable in the book, though the theme of needing God's agency is still there.
(no subject)
(no subject)
Faith, not Works.