What a huge plot hole, Narnia... - Comments

v. I love Reepicheep and yea, I know. Susan and Caspian are a big no no. >.> I think that the third movie didn't do its book counterpart any justice. >.> Or at least if there was any in there, it was overlooked by the whole Lucy trying to be like Susan thing.

DO NOT EVEN GET ME STARTED ON SUSAN/CASPIAN, UGH. VoTD is my favourite Narnia book, and the movie was so incredibly different that I had to re-read the book to make sure I hadn't remembered it correctly. LLatW and PC were actually pretty okay compared to the books, but VoTD wasn't. At least it had my darling Reepicheep (who by the way is featured on my profile xD)

Yea because Susan and Caspian kissed at the end of the last movie. >.> I just sort of felt annoyed by that and I think the movies implied a romance between Lucy and Aslan too. >.>

DX Eww, gross, love intrest. Yeah, that seems typical though. X)

v. Yea, that's true, they did mess up the Narnia movies up a lot because of the Narnia time loop but they also messed up Caspian's age as well though because Caspian is supposed to be at least Edmund's age in both Prince Caspian and Voyage of the Dawn Treader. The only reason they casted an adult as Caspian is so they can add a little bit of a love interest for Susan in the last movie.

I get where you're coming from, Tygra. If anything, this makes me not want to read the books. Either way, I find it a bad thing to leave out in the movie, even if they already had a lot of stuff packed in. I'm just kinda miffed.

v. I'm not ticked, just passionate about reading and although I see where Painted Summer's coming from, I don't really like it when people complain about weird loop holes in movies based off of books without reading the books as well.

O.O Hina's ticked.

Schiz: You're welcome and I know. I was just saying that it was kinda implied because didn't Aslan say that anything and everything is possible at one point or something along those lines when he was leading everyone out of the old Narnia?

vv. That's true and they can only take so much out of the books and put into them into the movies without going over the given budget.

v. Then why debate the timeline or plot hole if you're not going to read the books? The whole point of Narnia's existence is that there isn't an explanation for everything. Some things are better left as a mystery for others to come up with their own theories for and whatnot.

Quite frankly, I'm not interested in the books. My friend put the movie on, and I watched it. It doesn't matter if there's no set time-they still should have adressed it. So that just prooves how bad the movies really are. The books may be different...but I still think it should have been adressed in the movies.

As for the movies, I found they weren't terribly far from the truth, though there is a lot I'd have liked to seen transferred from the books to the movies. I think it's still a good representation, and doesn't necessarily ruin the whole thing. I mean, when producing a movie, the director, writers and everyone in charge of the actual film don't always get express permission to copy things directly from the book. In fact, many of them prefer to make the movie their own. Because everyone adds their own artistic flourish to something they create, right? And they only credit it as being based off of the books. You're not expected to love them even a little bit as much as the books. They're just there for entertainment purposes.

Colibri, that's what I've been saying all along.

Hina, thank you.
But no, the parent Pevensies never died. Only the kids.

v. There are seven books. No more, no less. :)

Let it be known that Hina loves Narnia to no end.

There are seven stories in all in the Narnia story, I believe. Or nine and I'm off. But I really do recommend reading them, otherwise you're just going to complain all your life and everyone's gonna be like, you didn't read it, what do you know? *ignore*

D*mn, I meant for the second part of my last comment to be aimed at Summer Paint.

vv. I know but it implied that their parents had died in alternate reality or something. Because somewhere it had said that in one reality the Pevensies had died on a train or something.

v. THANK YOU! =D

Narnia is a completely different world from ours, and it was never said that the time is set in stone. Besides, they come to Narnia when Narnia needs them, and it has a whole lot to do with God and all that stuff. It's not supposed to be logical, and I doubt it was ever meant to be wondered about. Because it's not a big deal. Time is not a big deal. Especially when there is a greater meaning to the books.

Vv their parents never died. Actually, it's more like the real Narnia was heaven, and try could do whatever they liked and were able to see all of the other worlds, and yet they were still dead in their old world and the old Narnia was gone.

BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING BETTER TO DO.

I read the books when I was in like seventh grade, so I've probably forgotten everything. I don't like when books don't follow the rules, though, even if it's intentional. It's always bugged me.

vv Exactly! Just like in the final book, when Narnia was "dieing" and the kids were all going to the "real" Narnia, we find out there were two slightly different realities or some kind of heaven because there was a reality where the kids had in fact died in a train crash and then another one where their parents were still alive in London, and then the one where they had stayed in Narnia. Or something to that effect.

vv. Reading the book would help you better understand the entire series as a whole, not just the movies. The movies were just there for someone's interpretation of the books and for show.

Lol.
Why is this such a huge debate?