ROTTEN TOMATOES: Exclusive: Ben Barnes Talks Prince Caspian

Exclusive: Ben Barnes Talks Prince Caspian

Narnia's newest member sits down with RT.

by Joe Utichi | March 25, 2008

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

Newcomer Ben Barnes on stepping into the magical world of Disney's Prince Caspian.

"In Prince Caspian, the magic has gone from Narnia, because it's been taken over by greedy, ambitious humans, so it's going to be much darker, and while The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe was almost a fairytale story, this is much more of a summer action movie. The joy of the series is that they're all, individually, completely different genres of story, and so there's quite a different tone for this film. It's balanced by director Andrew Adamson, who has this extraordinary ability to focus on minute details and the vastness of the Narnia story at the same time.

You have to spend the time getting the story right because as amazing as the special effects might be if you don't care about the characters then your film won't work. You have to make people care and you have to show all those different sides of the character and Caspian's fairly well layered, I think. He's an orphan whose father has been killed by his uncle and he's ambivalent about being a leader. He really is on the threshold of manhood and it's quite cathartic; he has to fight his own people.

I'm definitely going to be doing Voyage of the Dawn Treader and we're lined up to start in November. We were going to start straight away but we had problems with the strike and exam schedules for children and all of that. We're taking our time with it which I think is sensible. The first one was great but Caspian's going to be even better, so we have to take the time to make Dawn Treader even better."

RT will have more from Ben Barnes as our coverage of Narnia continues. The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian is released in the US on 16th May, Australia on 5th June and the UK on 26th June.

Related Items

Movie:	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
	The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe
Celeb:	Ben Barnes
	Andrew Adamson

(1-20 of 43 posts) | Reply

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 25 2008 09:51 AM

What, is RT contracting with MySpace now?! I couldn't even read half the text because the background was too dark. Are we supposed to link to become 'friends' with this guy or something?

I just can't work up too much of a head of steam over these books as a movie series, but I imagine I'll see most of them for the spectacle. They at least try a bit harder on these movies than they do the more flagrant also-rans like 'Seeker' and 'Eragon' et al.

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Mar 25 2008 10:56 AM

I realize that the first one made a lot of money, but it didn't mean it was any good. It's second rate "Lord of the Rings" in every way.

I mean, who can get excited about PG-rated battle scenes??

This is the only summer blockbuster I already know I won't be seeing. Junk.

(Reply to this)

zgberg writes:
on Mar 25 2008 11:37 AM

Although I can't stand Walden Media and their not so hidden agenda, I didn't think the first was terrible although it was LoTR - lite. I was an avid fan of the Narnia books when I was young so I'm anxious to see how they interpret this one. My fav has always been Dawn Treader, so looking forward to that.

(Reply to this)

Havokdx writes:
on Mar 25 2008 11:52 AM

Ahhh yes the usual knock of narnia from the adult persspective......Narnia was never meant to be like LoTR so why compare it? I thought narnia was great and am looking forward to the next ones, I am getting sick of all the hating on it! If you didn't like it don't go see the other ones, and don't compare it to LoTR cause that is just stupid.

(Reply to this)

polycube writes:
on Mar 25 2008 11:58 AM

I heard the Narnia movie has been used in church services (lion = Jesus). No matter how "good" the movies turn out, someone will love it and interpret it to fit their own ideologies.

Not like there's anything wrong with that.

(Reply to this)

thelawnwrangler writes:
on Mar 25 2008 12:15 PM

Polycube....

For real? You even know who wrote the books and why?

Research much?

Not that there is anything wrong with that? (Like saying I'm not racist, before a racist statement.)

(Reply to this)

The Tony Show writes:
on Mar 25 2008 12:16 PM

I enjoyed the first one, and look forward to Prince Caspian.

As far as the religious question- Narnia can be interpreted however you want to. With movies about killing God like The Golden Compass being made though, it's nice to have a little balance.

(Reply to this)

Slipperypick writes:
on Mar 25 2008 12:31 PM

Enough with the silly comparisons to LotR!
Two totally different series, CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien were contemporaries and friends. True, Tolkien was not enamored of Narnia, but the Narnia series was and is immensely popular with kids, and has always commanded the interest of a younger and more impressionable demographic. The descriptions in the Narnia books are spare and leave a great deal to the imagination; make no mistake, there's bloody battles and scenes that if fleshed out with further descriptive text would make folks think less about comparing LotR with The Chronicles.

As for the Christian slant... Well, the books were pretty explicit in that sense to begin with. The fact is that the social climate in America is perfect for Hollywood Christian Propagandists. Hey, I don't like it, but they have the right to push their agenda just as much as the next idiot. I, for one, can see the propaganda for what it is, and being a thinking dude, can easily filter it out. When it comes down to it, "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" was a pretty damn good epic movie. The one comparison I make to the LotR is this: It was faithful to its source material in almost every way. Peter Jackson made some good films, but his progressive deviation from plot and character (Faramir, anyone? No resemblance whatsoever to the originally written character, to the detriment of Jackson's version of the story) kinda sickens me. Good films in their own right, but he needlessly revised what was essentially a perfect story, to my mind unforgiveable.

At least CS Lewis would probably enjoy the movie based on his material.

That said, it looks like Prince Caspian is going to be a far removal from the original story. Oh well.

(Reply to this)

DarthWonka writes:
on Mar 25 2008 12:38 PM

In reply to this comment (#1652503)
Yes, it really is a shame that Narnia is constantly being compared to LotR. They really are very different book series. The reason, though, that people compare the Narnia movies with the Lotr movies is because the first movie LOOKED like a wannabe LotR. I mean, the movie could have easily taken a totally different route from any type of fantasy movie that's been on the screen before. Narnia is more charming than Harry Potter, simpler and more fanciful than LotR, and could, if executed to their potential, wipe the floor with any of your 80s fantasy films. Instead they chose to go LotR-lite route, and, from the previews, it looks like they're taking the same direction with "Caspian." It's a shame because it really should be its own thing. But hopefully I'm wrong about the movie.

(Reply to this)

trpsomewhere writes:
on Mar 25 2008 01:39 PM

It's NOT LOTR! It doesn't try to be LOTR!

Narnia books were written between 1949 and 1954
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia

LOTR books were written between 1937 and 1949.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings

Don't compare it to LOTR just because the movies came out at around the same time! The whole mythology is different. Do you have talking Lions or animals in LOTR? well, discount some of the LOTR creatures.

Still, it's unfair... I haven't read the books, but I thought Narnia was a pretty good standalone movie in its own right! LOTR? not this movie!

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 25 2008 01:47 PM

I don't think it helps that Weta did all the costumes for both LotR and Narnia, their stuff isn't very different movie to movie.
I liked Narnia alright. It's more geared towards kids, which is fine. So were the books. Tolkien created something entirely different, and I enjoyed the movies based off his books too. I never read the books, couldn't get into them. Maybe I will though, the comment about Faramir being different in the books got my curiosity going.
I still don't get why people equate PG ratings with a poor vision for filmaking. Can't someone make a PG movie that is respected? I don't think film is the medium that would be required to adequately represent what war is really like, so why complain about a rating? War is much worse than any rated R movie could possible show anyways. It is quite troubling to me that people enjoy the R rating so much to actually use the lack of an R rating as a critique of a movie. I don't get it. Sure, if the movie is titled "A History of Violence" and is rated G, you can question to motives behind the movie (or at least the title) and thus question the rating. I don't think that holds true for a movie whose message is different than a study of violence and it's effects on us. Hating on a movie because of a tamer rating is extremely superficial.

(Reply to this)

Joe Utichi writes:
on Mar 25 2008 02:10 PM

I certainly think the comparison is often made unfairly and taken too far, though I'd be hard pressed to argue that the green light wasn't given to The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe without the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy playing a large part. Of course Disney want to emulate the success of those films, but I thought LWW went a long way towards defining its own identity and I think Ben Barnes says something here that is right: the Narnia books are, each of them, individually defined. That's why I'm curious to see the direction Prince Caspian takes and how that differs from the first movie. I have to hope that as a saga, Narnia will craft its own sense of identity and these comparisons will ebb.

(Reply to this)

Sputnik99 writes:
on Mar 25 2008 03:13 PM

Can't get excited about a PG-rated battle scene? Try these:

Star Wars - Attack on the Death Star
Empire Strikes Back - Battle of Hoth
Raiders of the Lost Ark - Fight on the Truck Convoy
Jaws - End fight with the shark
Star Trek II - Enterprise vs. the Reliant
Superman II - Fight with the three villans
James Bond Films - Take your pick from dozens

A lot of movies are rated PG-13 or higher because of their foul language or nudity, not because of their fight scene quality. A good writer or director makes the scene, not the rating.

Narnia Fight scenes have been great. =)

(Reply to this)

harbinger317 writes:
on Mar 25 2008 03:20 PM

the scenes in lion tha were really cool were the part where teh lepercaun is playing that pan flute and when the witch is enticing edwin and when aslan destroys the witch at the end. it is and its intended to be a kids story but it is filled with christian imagery as that was c.s. lewis' intention. the truth be told LOTR was also filled with the christian imagery heard of "Retrun of the King" who do you think is symbolized there? but these narnia moviews will be going on for the another six series becasue of the books are seven. afterwars they will be sold as a set of whatever high tech movie storage sytmes they will have by then. the will be talking about these movies the way we talk about star wars. dude that makes me feel old. anyway somebody, quiet a few somebodys are going to get very rich. wish it was me

(Reply to this)

kissman24 writes:
on Mar 26 2008 02:25 AM

All that PG battle scenes you listed, Sputnik99, came before a PG-13 rating ever existed. So listing old PG movies that weren't rough enough to be R-rated is not exactly a valid argument. It was a different time with different standards.

I realize why some are defending this horrible film as being not LOTR, but the bottom line is that it ONLY exists because of LOTR.

Disney saw dollar signs and thought they could make a kid-friendly version of it by putting this on the big screen. They started hyping this thing around the same time that Return of the King was out in hopes of hooking the same audience.

Unlike LOTR, the CGI is weak, there's lousy character development, uninteresting characters/actors, and a battle scene that has the violence of a giant pillow fight.

It's not that I believe that LOTR and Narnia are similar stories/books/etc., but the films are of a similar genre and Narnia comes off as a sub par knockoff due to the timing and them being similar styles of the movies.

(Reply to this)

brave.sir.rob writes:
on Mar 26 2008 06:05 AM

Yeah, no question the battles in LWW were weak. The fight between Peter and the wolf captain should have been darker... or at least exciting in some way. Instead it was just a nervous kid holding a sword like a goober. I understand he wasn't Madmartigan (you ARE great) but c'mon, at least try.

(Reply to this)

iggybumtastic writes:
on Mar 26 2008 06:39 AM

Im looking forward to this, i thought the first was very good, and the sepcial effects were top notch, i hope they do this film justic.

Talk movies at itsfilmtastic.co.uk

(Reply to this)

TombstoneLawDog writes:
on Mar 26 2008 06:57 AM

In reply to this comment (#1653615)

Wow. A 'Willow' reference. A fellow old-timer on RT. You realize that movie is 20 years old, this summer? THAT was a fun movie with very little pretense and virtually NO religious connotation... aside from Val Kilmer in drag representing--

nah. Don't need to start another fight..

Are people REALLY passing stones over the comparison between LOTR and LWW?!
Far Away landscapes: Check
Mythical Creatures: Check
Magical Creatures: Check
Mythical Creatures who USE Magic: Check
Epic Battle Scenes: Check
Young and/or seemingly unassuming, childlike protagonists: Check
Upper Class British Accents for most principal characters: Check
Based on contemporary (with each other) 20th Century literature: Check

Don't get me wrong- there are PLENTY of reasons to distinguish these books and movie series. But the people who are outraged about the comparison being made AT ALL should probably go take a yoga class or something.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Mar 26 2008 07:20 AM

kissman24 - Are you honestly suggesting by your arguement that Star Wars would have been rated R? Otherwise, why make the point? It doesn't matter when the movies were made, just that their battle scenes wouldn't have warranted an R rating under today's rating system anyways.
Also, arguing that one film wouldn't have existed without the success of the other, while probably true, is ultimately futile. How far back are you willing to go? LOTR might not have existed if it weren't for earlier epic films. Whatever, who cares? You're trying to validate your fondness for one film at the expense of another. In the end, they are different movies. Compairing them is fun when talking about why or what the movie going public likes to digest....but really is silly when talking about the value of the individual movies. Why waste your time? Liking one movie doesn't mean you have to dislike the other.

(Reply to this)

goonzie writes:
on Mar 26 2008 07:20 AM

or maybe get some action- lots of pent up hostility floating around here.

(Reply to this)