Pajiba

so what happens in narnia stays in narnia ..sounds like a rental GO JAZZ!!!!!

That's too bad. I liked the first one a lot more than I thought I would and hoped for more of the same.

Because this movie earned an expected "meh" how bout a riddle!

A plane is standing on a runway that can move (some sort of band conveyer). The plane moves in one direction, while the conveyer moves in the opposite direction. This conveyer has a control system that tracks the plane speed and tunes the speed of the conveyer to be exactly the same (but in the opposite direction). Can the plane take off?"

So the plane's on a treadmill? It's being kept in place? As far as I can tell that wouldn't have any air being pushed over the wing and thus no lift. While thrust could increase, wouldn't it be the same as me running really fast on a really fast treadmill? There still wouldn't be forward movement through air, the thrust would just be turning the tires.

Since you say it's a riddle it's likely I'm dead wrong though, as I usually am.

There are two scenes I liked in the entire film. The first felt like they literally filmed what was on the page in the novel (when the Pevensies first return to Narnia), the other may have featured a certain Academy Award winning Actress who should have been nominated for the previous Narnia film.

The rest was a hot mess. I guess Disney wanted to make a fourth Lord of the Rings film and when that wasn't possible, they made Prince Caspian instead. I don't remember endless battle scenes in the book. But that's all the film felt like: teen angst and battle scenes (and Jesus rhetoric as subtle as ANTM loser edits (Aslan is Jesus, y'all, and Lucy is the symbolic lamb to Aslan's literal lion, get it? Don't worry if you don't, that's the entirety of her part in the film. Can't miss it.)).

And I still can't hate it because I love the Chronicles of Narnia and Don Treader has to be awesome because of Eddie Izzard as Reepicheep (please do the part again Eddie Izzard).

The tires on the bottom of the plane have nothing to do with the plane getting into the air - rather, they're meant to reduce friction, NOT function as a means of propulsion. Once you fire up the engines, the plane will take off, regardless of the spin of the tires. The only result will be the the plane's tires will spin pretty fast on takeoff. That's it.

Ah, Google, is there anything you can't help me find an answer to?

Well I know the tires don't lift the plane, I was just saying that the thrust forward against the backward motion of the belt would apparently just make them spin in place, which wouldn't generate the air moving over the wing.

My overlooked element is that the tires are free-spinning and the plane could get some forward motion through space anyway, though if that treadmill's really short it's gonna hit some major friction in a second. However, net forward motion on the treadmill may be dependent on the plane having a jet engine, not a prop, which is not specified in the question.

Ah, Google, is there anything you can't help me find an answer to?

Yes.

Well I know the tires don't lift the plane, I was just saying that the thrust forward against the backward motion of the belt would apparently just make them spin in place, which wouldn't generate the air moving over the wing.

I defer to my official basis for answers to any scientific conundrums: Mythbusters.

Yes, the plane can still take off, for much of the reason Fernando stated.

The thing it, the wheels don't generate the forward motion; the engine does, whether it is prop or jet. The engine forces the plane forward while the wheels simply make it easier for it to do so.

Thing is, the faster the engine goes, the sooner the plane achieves lift. So if a plane was put on a treadmill, even one matching the engine speed exactly (or even exceeding it), the air flow would still be achieved, and takeoff would still occur.

The wheels are a red herring. Besides, if they were so important to takeoff, how do you explain seaplanes?

Boy oh boy has this been argued!

Further research says the prop would thrust just as well and still add net motion to the equalized forward/backward.

Hmmmm. Too bad Mr. Wizard couldn't bust this out in his kitchen.

I could tell from the trailers that "Prince Caspian" was straying from the book, while "TLTWTW" was pretty accurate. It shouldn't be so battle heavy; there are only two really big ones in the book, plus Peter's combat with Miraz. And why even bother with the googly eyes b/w Susan and Caspian. She won't be back in the other films (if they continue with the series). I'm still debating if I want to see it, perhaps just for the part when the children are called back.

...moments of forced and unrealistic drama that leave no room for characterization, growth, or any kind of emotional connection to the people...

I'm in the middle of reading the books right now, and to be fair, that pretty much sums them up as well, in my opinion. The Magician's Nephew was meh... I got tired of LW&W's hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-hammer Jesus metaphor real quick. Caspian and Dawn Treader are fairly decent, if flawed. I'm a little more than half-way through The Silver Chair now, and quite frankly, I just want the damn series to end, but I'm determined to finish it.

Also, right before reading this series, I reread the entire Harry Potter series back-to-back, which was great in and of itself, but moving to this after that... well, I just have to say I have a fuckload more respect for JK Rowling than ever before.

And as for the "riddle." Mythbusters covered that on an episode not too long ago, and Fernando's exactly right. The plane's ground-speed has nothing to do with getting it off the ground, it's all in the engines. Planes have wheels on take off only so that as the engines build up power, the plane has something to do with its momentum and doesn't scrape its shiny metal ass across the pavement.

And I like mojitos. You all should join me.

What's really entertaining, beyond the principles, is the people saying that Mythbusters didn't completely create the stated conditions so "they didn't prove anything!" even if they agree with the results.

The main reason that movies like this and Henry Potter are made is because the Conservative Christians are in a ideological war with the homosexual left. This war began with the Teletubbies and the Conservative Right's hunt for anything gay. I never got on the Chronicles of Narnia Boat, not because I'm not gay, but because I just didn't like the franchise. If gay Hollywood is to survive, it must not take it up the backside from the evil Right.

But what if Aslan doesn't want the plane to take off?

Huh?

That hasn't been mentioned!

Take your rational science and fuck off up the model village!

But does Santa Claus show up and start handing out automatic weapons?

I tried to read the Chronicles of Narnia in college, when I was friendlier to its Christian allegorical overtones than I am now, and I still couldn't make it through Prince Caspian.

I had to fight nodding off for the whole movie. It could've been so much better paced.

I saw this movie on Friday and have to agree that there were a lot of side stories that were never really fleshed out enough to add anything to whatever story the movie was trying to portray. Although I did hear Reeepicheep's name mentioned at one point in the movie, pretty much all of the Narnians remained nameless throughout the movie, and only the "sons of Adam" were called by name.

The CGI effects were pretty decent - the warrior oxen or whatever those huge things with the curly horns on their heads were pretty kickass! It seemed like they ran out of CGI budget by the close of the film, however. The journey back to London was pretty much a quick camera cut. By contrast, the journey to Narnia, presumably early in the film's production when they still had lots of budget,had walls melting away, leaving them standing in Narnia.

Also, to address the airplane riddle - whether or not the plane flies or not depends on only one thing - the speed of the airplane relative to the air. In order for the airplane to take off, the airplane has to be moving fast enough with respect to the air. Have you ever seen sea gulls just hovering in the wind near a dock? The gulls can just hover in one place and grab food out of your hand without flapping their wings. In this case, the onshore wind is moving air past the gull's wings, causing the wings to generate lift and keep the gull up in the air.

If the airplane is on a treadmill with the engines on, because the airplane is not moving with respect to the air, then no lift is generated by the wings and the airplane won't lift off. If the airplane was on the treadmill and you switched off the engines, the airplane would start rolling backwards. When the airplane is in the treadmill, the thrust of the engines just balances with the rolling friction of the airplane tires on the treadmill.

Watched it. Completely forgettable for the most part.

However, I find it funny that Peter Dinklage and Warwick Davis are the most well-known live actors in this movie. Plus Dinklage was pretty good.

Well, I'll leave the riddles to the alcohol-not-inclined. (BTW, Newcastle Brown Ale is the nectar of choice right now!).

As for Prince Caspian, my problem isn't with the blandness of the main characters or the Nation of Inigo Montoya villains. My problem's with the almighty kitten, who once again becomes the cavalry and finds himself riding in again to save our "heroes" hides at the last moment.

Now that worked in LW&W (kinda) because you bought Tilda Swinton's Witch as being the kind of threat 4 kids with the best toys Santa's sweatshop ever knocked out could just not handle. But Caspian's evil uncle or his conniving adversary? You really had to have us wade through 2 hours of the worst Antonio Banderas' accents just so Mr. Mittens can show up and deal with the bad guys in 2 seconds flat?

BTW, the highlight of this movie is Caspian's temptation and who resolves it (if you saw the first movie). Besides that, I don't know that I'd run out to see this thing. Just remember: 6 more days until Uncle George Lucas comes for your money and rapes another bit of your childhood.

BTW, ignore the last bit about Lucas. It's a bit strong and out of line. I need some sleep and shouldn't post semi-drunk.

Oh and kudos to whoever said Dinklage and Davis. They and the little mouse are the best things in this movie.

come now: you have to admit that the scene where the mice tie up the cat is hilarious. Also Reepicheep's name was mentioned. And I also hope eddie izzard comes back for voyage of the dawn treader.

With the airplane, surely the treadmill is a red herring. If the engines are on, the plane will be pushed forward regardless of what is happening down at the wheels. If the treadmill could in some way cancel out the forward thrust, which would only be possible if that forward thrust was coming from the wheels, which we have established is not the case, then the airplane wheels would be moving very fast in one spot and the plane would not take off.
Re accents in the film, I've said it before, but it bugs me so I'll say it again, Caspian is 10th generation Narnian. How could he possibly have a foreign accent?
Did they miss out the bit where at the end Reepicheep lost his tail and therefore his honour and as Aslan though it was just vanity he refused to magic the tail back. Then all the other mice got ready to chop their own tails off as they couldn't let their valiant leader be below them on the honour stakes, Aslan was so impressed with their bigheartedness that he gave Reepicheep his tail back after all.

I loved these books as a little girl, and I so desperately want to love this movie...but I'm not so sure it's going to happen.

Chris, yes, that does happen.

There was too much unintentional humor going on in my head with Warwick (Wicket, Willow, Leprechaun, Happy Pizza) Davis and Peter "Whoa, it must be a fuckin dream! There's a fuckin dwarf here!" Dinklage. Wasn't the movie's fault but I was also with a couple of pro wiseacres and much giggling ensued.

Airplane Riddle: First thing that came to mind was the plane is a Harrier so it can achieve vertical take off. Simplest solution is usually the correct one and all that.

I didn't know Eddie Izzard did a voice on this. I just saw him in concert last week and he didn't mention it. Most performers would jump at plugging an appearance, he just did his stand up. Classy guy. Great show if you get a chance to see it. Interesting he's in an allegorical Christ movie when the brunt of his new show is about his disbelief in the existence of God. Maybe THAT'S why he didn't mention it onstage.

Ooh! I'm glad to hear you liked it. I bought tickets for him and Kids in the Hall on faith, but reports have been good. Yeah, I thought it was funny he was there too, but hey, it's a big gig. Plus I imagine he'd read them all anyway.

"Dad! Don't call me Jeezy Creezy!"

ChrisD, Caspian and his ilk are not Narnian, they are Telmarines who conquered Narnia 10 generations ago, thus explaining their different accents. My problem with this is, if they conquered Narnia, then none of them should be the "rightful king" of Narnia. But that's just sort of brushed aside by the fact that Caspian sides with the true Narnian's, so they support him and it's okay...

Well, it's good to know that when I go to the movies today, this movie will be thrown out of the ones I have to choose from.

That's sad too, as Prince Caspian is one of my favorite books.
Actually, it's prob for the best; I'll just read the book later.

Jay: the Eddie Izzard show was 2 hours plus, totally non-stop and no recycled material. I've heard if you hang out after the show at the stage door he does an impromptu meet and greet but because I learned this after the fact we did not stay. Have a good time, it was well worth the money!

I've tried to read the Chronicles of Narnia several times, and I just can't get into them. They just don't have a consistent storyline, and stuff happens that doesn't connect to anything else in the story, and some storylines just happen and are dropped. Yes, it does make me appreciate The Hobbit, LOTRs and the Harry Potters much more. Plus, not being Christian, I didn't catch the allegorical stuff, but that shouldn't even come to mind while reading a kiddie book.

I'm just a little confused that in 1300 years, Narnia has gone from the Middle Ages to the Middles Ages. In 1300 years, Europe went from the Dark Ages to the Space Age.

I read the first couple of books when I was a child but my interest dissipated year on year even though I enjoyed them. I've been stuck on the third book for well over a decade. Being Catholic, it was surprising how apparent the allegorical side of the book came to mind when I was a kid. Maybe that put me off. I don't know. I wasn't a fan of Neeson-Aslan and I was left quite lukewarm after the first film. This review does not bode well but at least the books are still there! Ah well, ya can't have it all in cinema.

The bastardization of man is apparent in the Chronicles of Narnia. Man being the higher animal are not to be used as instruments or pawns for the sexual pleasure of the beast. Unwashed whores are the great evil that infest our darker souls.

Pookie, I thought you resigned. Guess that was too much to ask for.

ChrisD, Caspian and his ilk are not Narnian, they are Telmarines who conquered Narnia 10 generations ago, thus explaining their different accents. My problem with this is, if they conquered Narnia, then none of them should be the "rightful king" of Narnia. But that's just sort of brushed aside by the fact that Caspian sides with the true Narnian's, so they support him and it's okay...

Bistro, it's okay because he technically is descended from a "Son of Adam" - Telmar was originally an unpopulated land. Apparently in 'our world' a boat shipwrecked itself on an (by the description, somewhere in the Pacific), and apparently they blundered through a portal to Telmar. So Caspian is A-OK. Of course, his uncle should be as well... but we'll just ignore that in favour of the pretty brooding Prince, right?

I still want to this, but with a touch less excitemnt. Boo.

Listen I didn't resign, I was asked to come back and was offered a very generous financial package. I do not like your hateful tone, besides there are a million movie review sites on the web. But yet you pick pajiba to infect with your diseased bile. It is a lovely Saturday evening, shouldn't you be out somewhere enjoying ass play?Your attacks on me are very mean spirited and distasteful.

@Pookie: I'm confused as to what this movie has to do with homosexuality? Or beastiality?

@Bistro: Caspian is the "rightful king" because he supports the true narnians, but mainly because there arent any human true Narnians. I havent seen the movie yet, but in the book Dr. Cornelius says there were very few humans in Narnia - they had pretty much all gone on to neighboring countries, and the Telmarines fought the Talking Animals to take over the country, and wiped out the humans.

As well, I think it was in the Magicians Nephew, someone mentions that Narnia can only be ruled by a Son of Adam and Daughter of Eve.

Therefore, since the only humans left in Narnia are Telmarines, anyways, it makes sense for the only one of the side of the True Narnians to be their king.

Hopefully I made sense?

@Zoe: the reason the Uncle isn't okay is that he tried to wipe out the talking animals - genocide isn't cool, even in Narnia

Superfish, gay love should not be rebuked in Hollywood. The Christian Conservative has taken his eyes off the ball. The recent court victory in favor of Man love will take us to a higher level. In the Incredible Hulk movie, Man Strength is the power that will save America. What I say is simple to understand if Man love is now the new pathway to not being against the law.

Pookie: I get where you're saying that "man love will take us to a higher level". What I don't understand is what it has to do with a children's movie.

Superfish, Chronicles of Narnia is a children's fantasy movie. The word fantasy begins with an F, Fairy begins with the letter F. The makers of Narnia are very cunning with the letter F. As I said before, the Incredible Hulk movie is about man strength and not man love. The male kids like to look at Playboy , Hustler, and Jugs magazines, the male lion in Narnia does not come from a position of strength. Superfish I'm surprised you can't see the connection that I'm drawing. I think you are confused by man love at it's purest state as it relates to Naria. A perfect example of what I'm talking about is if you looked at the character Cooter from the Dukes of Hazard you would see man strength and not man love, it's so simple.

Superfish, it is okay. Pookie never makes sense. He never tries to. When you question him, he just goes on and on down a very weird tangent. Then again, some find that immensely entertaining, so continue at your own leisure.

Just don't give yourself a migraine trying to take him seriously. Besides, you really believe this rinky-dink operation they call a website can afford to PAY him to do that? Please.

Thank you Vermillion for killing everyone's buzz. You're such a fucking Narc! Goodnight.

I feel a little left out here, I never got to read any of this Narnia malarkey when I was young. I got Lewis Carrol instead of C.S. Lewis.

As for the aeroplane riddle, the whole idea is flawed. The premise is that if you match the speed of the treadmill with the speed of the plane it'll stay in one place, which is not true at all. This would work with a car, where the power goes straight to the wheels and the wheels push the car along the ground, but that's not how planes work. Plane engines drive the propellor, which pulls the plane forward. There is no way to match the speed of the treadmill with the speed of the plane, because the two aren't related in any way.

The treadmill could be racing backwards at the speed of light (for the sake of argument, obviously the wheels would put up some friction) and it would have no effect on the plane whatsoever. The wheels spin freely, they're just there for the plane to move around more easily when it isn't flying.

I could see the riddle making more sense if the treadmill was replaced with a giant fan blowing at the plane with the same force that the propellor pulls the plane forward. Then it'd actually be a valid riddle, albeit with a fairly obvious answer. Having a plane on a treadmill is like asking whether you'd be able to run away if I nailed your shoes to the ground.

Hey everybody! It's Tina Fey's birthday! It's also the birthday of my best friend who INSISTED that I start watching "30 Rock"! So fuckin celebrate with whatever you've got handy. Ladies, I love you both.

Vermillion, I didnt believe he got paid for his mess of an opinion, I guess I just wrongly assumed he was going somewhere with it :) But after his last response, I definitely learned that he wasn't!

Superfish please forgive that Vermillion character for injecting himself into our conversation. It is refreshing to be able to engage someone about Hollywood's increasing efforts in putting gay themes in children's movies. I don't have any idea about that Vermillion fellow. But from what I know about his situation he's not really liked here at pajiba. I apologize for his unsolicited remarks.

Caspian is pretty fucking hot, and I can go easy on the movie for showing some sexy man meat. Holy fuck he made me wet. I haven't been so aroused during a kids movie since There Will Be Blood. I love summer movies.

Go Penguins Go.

Sorry, you lost me at "McFeely". All the Streetfighter Turbo going on in my house today has apparently turned this 20-something girl into a hard-up-for-jokes 12-year-old boy.

Also, I've stopped watching Grey's, but there should really be a character named "McFeely" next season. Just saying.

My boyfriend and I are taking his sister to see the movie Saturday and I'm kind of looking forward to it but honestly, I can hardly remember anything about Prince Caspian from when I read the series a few years back (I'm mostly looking forward to Dawn Treader and Silver Chair [Marsh-wiggle!]). The Horse and His Boy I wasn't too crazy about and I don't think they'll make a movie for the Magician's Nephew.

The Last Battle would make an interesting movie, I think. Honestly, the end of it always confused me.

Does the movie mention Aslan telling Peter and Susan that they can't come back to Narnia?

Took the kids to see it and they enjoyed the heck out of it - laughed and jumped and retold their favorite parts when it was over. So it worked for them. I thought it was passable. Too much CGI, too little characterization, almost no reason why the Narnians would fall in behind Caspian even before the Brits showed up. The only real tension was the pissing contest between Peter and Caspian, and even that was sort of meh. The scenery was nice....

"Prince Caspian isn't a completely terrible film, but it's also not a very good one." Why am I not surprised? Oh, I know, sounds just like the first one. Dreadfully boring.

So the treadmill causes the wheels to rotate backwards, but the engines push the airplane forward..so when a greater force overrides the direction of tire rotation, the tires squeal (friction), lose rubber, and would likely fall apart before the plan reached the velocity needed to generate the necessary air flow under the wings for flight. The plane would collapse onto the treadmill tarmac - this would greatly increase the surface area for friction, causing the plane to momentarily move backward (toward the treadmill's motion). But engines would continue to push forward, causing the undercarriage to heat up and possibly teat apart. Flight at this point would be impossible, with the likely end result an explosion.
If you make an additional assumption that the tires are indestructible, then flight would be possible.

I've loved the Narnia books my whole life, and I remember being a child and thinking what it would be like to see the stories as movies, to see all the characters that I was emotionally connected to walking and talking on screen.

There have been a handful of Narnia films in the past couple decades (one was an animated Lion, Witch, Wardrobe) and there was this low budget one out of Britain with the worst costumes ever for the talking animals, and the Robot they dressed up as Aslan was so rickety you could hear the joints moving. But I still consider those movies better than the emotional void that is this new batch of emotionally void movies that don't even stick to the classic stories.

I mean, come on - Reepicheep is one of the most significant characters in the whole Narnia stories, and they didn't even address him as a character? Utter crap.

I will not be seeing Prince Crap-sian

Trumpkin looks a lot like the Norseman mascot from Freaks & Geeks. Noticing the resemblance killed the movie for me, as I spent much of the remaining time wishing that I was at a F & G movie instead.

How funky is your chicken? How loose is your goose?

I loved the Chronicles (sp) of Narnia as a kid and I hope the movies hold up without ruining my imagination of the fantasy books. But hey, Hollywood f*#ked up alot of my childhood imaginations so why should this be any different?

On another note, glad to see Pookie return (was he ever really gone). He may be a little abrasive and counter intelligent at times but shit gets boring around here when we all agree.

Welcome back P-bag!!!!!!!!

Phat girl I must admit the thought of you sitting in front of your computer in nothing but your panties and a tee shirt speaking directly to me and only me is a real turn on. You get my juices flowing. My thoughts penetrate you deeply and forcefully, every thought that I thrust into you is hungrily received. My thrusting thoughts take you to a magical place, in time my thoughts become to much for you and you are left filled with my many thoughts.

Fernando and Vermillion - you're just plain wrong about the plane on a conveyor belt. The MythBusters' experiment was flawed. An ultralight and a model airplane need very little relative wind to fly. The example they cite probably had the ultralight pointed into a 20 kt headwind, sufficient to get the wheels off the ground so the prop had no ground friction to overcome. Yes, the thrust of the prop (or jet) works on the air, but if something is pulling the aircraft backwards such that it counteracts that thrust entirely and results in net zero thrust, the airplane is going nowhere. Think about how an aircraft carrier works. If the carrier is headed downwind (instead of the usual upwind) at a speed equal to the speed of the catapult (pretty dang fast), then regardless of how much thrust the pilot applies, the aircraft will simply fall over the edge of the deck when the catapult releases and the plane will be run over by the boat.

A glider is another example. Will a glider takeoff if it's levitated in the air and has no relative wind to create lift over the wing? Forget about the prop - the backward moving runway negates the prop's thrust, which in effect turns the airplane into a glider. It ain't gonna fly with no wind moving over the wing.

Actually, you DO hear Reepicheep's name once - right after he first tackles Caspian. That's the only time, though, so I know what you mean.

You're trying too hard Pookie.

A glider is another example. Will a glider takeoff if it's levitated in the air and has no relative wind to create lift over the wing? Forget about the prop - the backward moving runway negates the prop's thrust, which in effect turns the airplane into a glider. It ain't gonna fly with no wind moving over the wing.

But sosumi, you discount that the WHEELS are free-rolling. They negate the treadmill/backward-running runway. There has to be enough friction to slow the plane down and thereby negate the forward motion of the prop. The wheels counteract this.

This is why I brought up the seaplane. It has no other moving parts besides the prop, and yet they are able to fly just fine. I doubt that every single seaplane has to wait for the current to go their way. Mostly because the pontoons are designed to cut through the water and, you guessed it, reduce the friction that normally keeps the plane still.

Thing is, moving or not, the forces between the runway and plane are still the same. The runway is technically still moving in the opposite direction relative to the plane, whether or not it is actually moving.

You're wrong - Reepicheep is named the very first time he appears in the movie! Trufflehunter (the badger, who is never named in the movie) calls out his name rather loudly when Reepicheep is standing on Caspian's chest. The character who is never named is TRUMPKIN, the DLF.

Vermillion - I assume the plane weighs something, therefore the wheels are not free-rolling - there is friction between the wheels and the treadmill. This friction effectively causes the treadmill to pull the plane backwards, which the prop's thrust counteracts - causing the plane to stay in the same place - hence no forward motion, no movement of air over the wings, and no lift. When I am running on a treadmill, I am running in place. I can run faster than the treadmill is spinning and thus move forward, but the question assumes that the treadmill and the thrust of the prop are exactly in sync - thus no forward movement.

I ignored Pajiba's review of this movie and saw it. Gotta say this is one of the few times Pajiba has tried to steer me wrong. And I can't believe more people aren't commenting on it, but rather on a plane riddle.
Whatever.
I thought "Prince Caspian" was GOOD. Not great. Not better than the first one. But better than Pajiba gives it credit for.
And the thing with Prince Caspian and Susan...yeah, it didn't "develop" quite as deeply as we may have wanted, but I believe (spoiler!) Susan kisses Caspian towards the end and makes more than googly eyes towards him on more than one occasion and actually spits out a couple lame one-liners.(end spoiler)
I don't know. I think Pajibans need to go out and see this for themselves to decide. This review was a little too scathing for the movie NOT being terrible.

No, I'm gonna have to agree with Pajiba's assessment of the movie. And I'm a huge Narnia fan. It was very disappointing. Too much done with not enough.

The wheels are free-rolling relative to the plane. Of course they have friction with the ground, but they don't exert enough force to stop the plane from achieving lift. And the plane will achieve lift as long as there is air flowing around the wings. How does that happen? With the prop.

ALso, the treadmill is still moving in the same relative direction as the unmoving runway would be. That is, it is moving in the opposite direction of the plane. So why would it change the plane's flight capability when, relative to the plane, there is no difference in the forces acting on it?

The issue isn't that the plane moves FORWARD off the end of the treadmill, which it wouldn't due to your reasons. The issue is whether or not the plane will move UPWARDS, and as long as there is air flowing (which is going to happen since the pane is indeed moving in relation to the surrounding air regardless of the treadmill's speed), it will do so.

Will the plane go zooming straight off the edge of the treadmill? No. But the plane, as soon as it reaches takeoff velocity, will indeed fly. Now, if the treadmill was moving in the same direction as the plane, then you have a real quandary.

As far as the Mythbusters test being flawed, several other folks have done similar attempts, many of which are on Youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EopVDgSPAk

Vermillion - Ok, you convinced me. Now I get it, snce the thrust of the prop pushes on air the treadmill would just cause the wheels of the airplane to spin faster and would not prevent the airpane from moving forward. My bad.

I just saw this a couple days ago, and I have to say, I completely disagree. I'm a huge fan of the books, and Caspian has always been one of my favorites from the series, and I really enjoyed it. It wasn't a masterpiece, true, but I thought it was a very good movie. They weren't exactly loyal to the source material in every way (oops, I accidentally blew this ancient horn that will do what now?), but it was true to the feel of the series.
Lucy was a little underdeveloped, but she's a pretty straightforward character-believes in Aslan, is pure and perfect and, like, nine. Not a lot there to begin with. Susan I remembered mainly for how forgettable she was in the books. I thought she was, in a word, kickass in the movie. For real, girl will kick your ass. I loved how they handled her character. True, the strange burgeoning romance with Caspian wasn't in the novel, but it worked surprisingly well here. Susan (and Peter) is on the verge of adulthood, stepping into yet another strange world. Those who've read the books know what lies ahead for her, and how important a change adulthood will be. She seemed uncertain and full of doubts when it came to Caspian, which seemed accurate for their ages. It wasn't Hollywood cinematic 'twoo love', it was a first crush. They also did a good job of showing how frustrated she and Peter are becoming with having to deal with the difficult transition from being adult kings and queens in Narnia to suddenly living as children again in England. But the character I was most impressed with was Edmund. He didn't get a lot of screen time, and never even got a little side plot of his own, yet they did a great job of showing his character and how he had grown since the last story. He was calm, mature, and intelligent. One of my favorite moments was during a break in Peter's fight with Miraz, when Edmund notices the Narnians behind them looking concerned and tells Peter to "keep smiling". Edmund steps easily back into the role of right-hand man for his brother the High King, aware of the things Peter doesn't or can't notice, managing and advising his brother while somehow being the only character to manage to not get into a fight with any of the others. I was never very invested in either Susan or Edmund in this book, but the movie brought them out wonderfully. I could go on about everything for ages (or 1300 years), but I won't, because I am merciful.
I don't normally find myself disagreeing so strongly with Pajiba reviews, particularly when either children's movies or fantasy are involved, but I thought it was amazing and came out of the theater very happy. It had its flaws, like any movie, but I would have no qualms in recommending this to anyone, even a fan of the books.
Um, so once again I have written a Pajibessay on Narnia. Sorry about that. (Oh ok, not really.)

Um, so once again I have written a Pajibessay

Well, your name kind of implies it, so who could blame you? Besides, uniformed assent or faith within the review comments would be atrocious.

I thought that "Matrix" quote by Peter was from the books.

I thought this book was forgettable out of them all in the series. The Horse And His Boy was by far my favourite, but I can understand why it wasn't adapted, as it can be perceived as racist (who am I kidding, it's downright anti-muslim) and it only features the siblings as cameo characters. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader is great, I hope they hit that; The Silver Chair deals with all new characters so they'll probably let that slip; and The Last Battle is simply too traumatizing for their target demographic.

I thought the Matrix quote by Peter was from the books? Anyways, it's a valid question.

I'm annoyed they passed over The Horse And His Boy. It's my favourite book in the series. Then again, I suppose their portrayal of the Calormenes could be perceived as racist. And the siblings only make a cameo appearance.

I hope they hit The Dawn Treader.

The Silver Chair is probably a lost cause... the pevensies aren't even in it.

The Last Battle will traumatize their entire target demographic, so I can't see that happening.

I'd really like to see them go back and do The Magician's Nephew.

First to all you twits who can't enjoy watching a movie without complaining. Go try making a Disney movie that better the narnia films and try and get it into the cinema. Cause there are people who are fans and like to see you make anything better which I highly doubt it.

The second movie was good. Funny with the mice, cute with the love scene with Susan and Caspian, and nice quick fight between Peter and Caspian.The movie was just as good as the first even better I would say..

Lastly, Daniel Carlson your an idiot, I bet you have not read the books. Your article is as dull as your brain which proves to show you have no imagination what so ever. Go back to your low employee job because know what likes to hear your opinion and probably don't where you work. I am amazed you haven't got fired for this article.

Unlike yours truly, We like movies that are from books, tv shows, cartoons and games cause its called ENTERTAINMENT not I'M AN A**HOLE WHO LIKES TO BITCH ABOUT MOVIES THAT SUCK.

haven't seen Prince Caspian yet but definitely looking forward to it...
i'll have to look over the book one more time just to remind myself how the original story goes

Katie - You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're kidding.

They blew it by sticking to action and avoiding everything about the book that makes it work: namely, humour and character.

Once again, Plot as King leaves the whole world bland.

*shrug*

I saw it last night and really liked it. But then I'm a long time lover of the books, and thought the first movie was pretty good, so I was disposed to like it.

Yeah, Reepicheep's name was only mentioned once, as were Trufflehunter's and Trumpkin's, but I could live with that.

At least they kept in the Bulgy Bear sucking his paws during Peter's fight with Miraz.

It was surprisingly dark and violent, and I was actually genuinely upset when so many Narnians were trapped in the castle and slaughtered.

I give them kudoes for developing both Susan and Peter by showing their struggle at reconciling childhood and adulthood, and thought the rivalry between Peter and Caspian worked surprisingly well. Edmund certainly showed a tremendous amount of character growth, I thought as well, and yes, he really is the mature one in this film.

Was the pace a bit uneven? Well, yes. But I can forgive a lot, because overall I thought it was more than all right - the scenery, the battle scenes, the arrival in Narnia, the remaining echoes of WWII, etc. And Caspian's pretty easy on the eyes. My only difficulty was getting used to his accent, because I never imagined the character speaking that way.

But why has no one mentioned Glenstorm the centaur? Rwoar!

im bummed that all 5 {peter, susan, edmond & lucy} wont be in the other narnia movies! they should all be in the movie! the script makers could write that peter & susan can come back 2 narnia by believing hard enough or something! they would get a lot of good reviews by adding peter & susan back in.

Besides, uniformed assent or faith within the review comments would be atrocious.
You're right, Jay, that would be atrocious. What would Pajiba be without all the respectful (and disrespectful) difference of opinions?
Just saw this again yesterday. Loved it again! My friend and I realized how much we missed Narnia, and I realized what an important place it had been to me growing up. Watching the story was just so familiar. But now I'm faced with a difficult decision - do I want to risk reading the series again, or keep it in my head the way I saw it when I was younger? Will I love it as much now that I'm trained in the art of literature dissection? Has anyone else read the series recently? How does it hold up to rereading in adulthood?
And Maddie - I know it's easy to get attatched to the characters, but trust me, it works. C.S. Lewis wrote great books with hard, adult ideas for kids. Some parts of it are hard, but they only make the story better.