The Movie "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a good adaptation of the book.

In the last round of this debate, Con and I will be summarizing our arguments, refuting those made in Round 3, and presenting for the last time our sides of the position.1. Edmund and the quest to be king. I would like to mention, once more, that i never disagreed that the movie made changes to the book. We all know it did. Every movie adaptation, even the best, makes at least one alteration. The question is whether or not the changes made were large enough and the corruption of the themes immense enough to warrant a "bad" adaptation. To answer a question asked by Con, my belief is that the diminishing of Edmund's character, which I believe is really non-existent, doesn't qualify as a significant loss of adaptation. Why do I believe it is non-existent? The answer is that the only times we see Edmund show any lack of character is in Eustace's house at Cambridge and at Deathwater, both of which scenes are in the book. All other scenes relating Edmunds "desire to be king" are a personal temptation which Edmund deals with. This temptation does nothing to diminish our view of Edmund. It is simply a temptation which ultimately culminates at Dark Island. Now, to address Con's refutation of my Edmund Eustace comparison, I would like to point out that Con's argument is very weak. To say that Eustace is a nuisance, therefore he is bad/evil, and to characterize Edmund as "annoying", really makes no sense. Edmund is not annoying, he is simply dealing with and struggling against the temptations of greed and power. Con said "How is this not a real argument when a movie takes a charactor and changes many of his charactoristics. To me that seems a big problem with the movie." The movie didn't alter Edmund's character, it presented more fully the subjects addressed in the book. There was extremely little change, if any at all.2.Con conceded the arguments regarding the combinations of Death-water and Dragon Island, so that flows to Pro.3. The green mist: Con, in the last round, presented an argument in which he stated that the addition of adventure was a big waste, but I would like to point out that the simple addition of adventure in no way detracts from the book. The green mist doesn't detract; It makes it more real. Con stated "I believe that the green mist was not needed and wasted time and money." I would argue that any other adaptation of the book, any alteration in this area, would also have consumed time and money. Had the movie followed the book absolutely, strictly, and invariably to the t, enormous amounts of money would still need to be consumed. This argument, in my opinion, is not strong. Now regarding the argument brought up by Con referring to the variations of theme, Con said "It undermines the theme becuase it changes from the children and Caspian relying on Aslan to change them but The children and Caspian changing to save themselves from the green mist." I would disagree. In the movie, as well as in the book, the children rely on Aslan for courage in times of despair. They rely on Aslan when they are tempted. They rely on him to cleanse them of their corruption. In all of the children's difficulties, Aslan is there. For example, Lucy is confronted by Aslan when she is tempted and when she gives in to envy. He is also with Eustace to free him from being a dragon. At dark island, where they all rely on Aslan to pull them through, it is evident that the themes are retained throughout the movie. Also, Con's response to my visualization argument was, essentially, a concession. He agreed that it was more visual, and that argument therefore flows to Pro. The green mist, though seemingly a complete destruction of the book, actually reinforces the themes presented and provides a visual picture of the concepts illustrated in the book. The simple alteration of scenes doesn't equal a bad adaptation. The green mist though an alteration, serves to bolster the book and to show to an even greater extent the themes.4. Eustace as a dragon: I believe that my previous argument is adequate to express my opinion for this discussion. During Eustace's transformation and his turnaround, the book presents this part of the story from Eustace's perspective. It is a inward moral turnaround over a long period of time. While this works well in the book, as a movie, it would be basically impossible to present a gradual moral turnaround over a period of weeks. The movie did an excellent job showing this change. His self-sacrifice and his bravery in danger show greatly the moral change which occurs in Eustace. It was a good adaptation of that part of the book.5. Caspian: To answer Con, I believe that the character traits presented at the end of the earth scene are not unnecessary. They show Caspian's internal struggle which was released in the book. it presents his loyalty to Narnia illustrated in the book but not really addressed elsewhere in the movie. This scene served to add to the adaptation of the book. If Con could explain in his last presentation how the traits presented are "unnecesary", that would be great.Throughout this debate, I have shown how the movie adequately represents the book. Yes, it is not perfect, but the movie served to present the original themes intended by C.S. Lewis. It showed the overcoming of temptation, the adventure, and the wonder of the book. It followed the storyline to a great degree, and it exemplified the traits of Aslan and of those who trust in him. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was a good adaptation of the book, and I would recommend it as such to anyone.