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

Here we go with the second half of the third round! In this half, I will go over the arguments presented by Pro and do my best to refute them and show you that they actually support the Con side. Lets get started!1. Edmund and his quest to be king. Pro's argument was basically that my argument wasn't really an argument by saying, "I would like to point out that having someone appear to have better character in the book is not a real argument. " As I get into the details of this argument, I would like to ask pro what he meant by his sentence of Aslan on Deathwater. I didn't quite understand the point of that whole sentence so if you could clarify what that has to do with my argument, Pro, that would be great. Before I get into my refutation of this argument, I would like to say that what I meant by making Eustace a villian was that, through part of the movie, he was one of the bad guys becuase he was a nusence to the crew. I put Edmund on the level as Eustace becuase Edmund, through part of the movie, was pretty anoying during the scenes where his greedy charactor took over. Now to refute the argument. I believe making a charactor different than from the book is a major separation. In the book, you see nothing of Edmund wanting to become king, wanting to take control, wanting to become a man, or being greedy, except, of course, at Deathwater. The movie made Edmund become a person of bad charactor through out, I believe, half of the movie. To this argument Pro said, basically, that this isn't a real argument. I ask pro, 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. Pro also said, "The same is true with the movie. The difference lies in the length of time. " In the book, you see edmunds greed for about one chapter. in the movie, you see it for about half. Again, I believe this to be a big separation.2. Dragon Island being combined with Deathwater Island. I would like to quote pro from his first argument, "Secondly, it might be noted that the movie combined both the island of Deathwater and Dragon Island into one volcanic island. It might be claimed that this was a bad decision and that it twists up the book. This is whole issue is, on the contrary, unimportant and inconsequential. " In this area, I agree with Pro, this isn't a big issue. In the first round, I just wanted to ask a few clarifying questions to clear up some "unkowns" about the argument. I believe that Pro adequatly answered them so I have no more arguments I would like to present against this argument.3. The GREEN MIST. Pro basically said that Con agreed with pro on this issue in one area, that I said that it provides adventure and he asked how is this a bad thing. I would like to quot somthing from and earlier argument made by me, "The only thing the green mist did was add more adventure to the story even though I believe it has quite a bit of adventure already in the book. " Now if the book already had enough adventure in it than what does that make the green mist. .. .. .. . A big waste! I believe that the green mist was not needed and wasted time and money. Pro asked me if ithe mist undermines the themes and intentions of the book. I say, YES! There were a few themes in the book but one was Edmund's, Lucy's, and Eustace's charactors changed. Pro said that the green mist provided a more visual picture than the book provided. But as I said in my last argument, "Pro said it was a symbol of evil and the temptation of that evil, but if it was, than a waste of time and money because the book showed the overcoming of the evil quite well without the book. " Now how does this undermine the theme? 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 say this because in the part when Edmond and Caspian are fighting in the cavern under Deathwater, Lucy dosn't stop them by saying that Aslan was watching or somthing like that, it was, " Stop it! This is exactly what Coriakin was talking about. "It wasn't the children's and Caspians being taught by Aslan, it was the reminder that the green mist was doing this and to not be overcome by the mist. One more note on Pro's argument, he said, "The mist provides a more visual picture than the book provided, allowing greater perception of concept by the audience. " Well, of course it does, a movie is visual, a book is using your imagination.4. Eustace:I would like to say for this argument what I said in the last round, "This is a problem because they had to put dragon Eustace everywhere they went untill his transformation, which is contrary to the book. For example, a dragon wasn't supposed to help defeat the sea serpent, it was Reepicheep figured out that they could push on the sea serpents body and ,with the help of the crew of coarse, push it off the boat. " Pro really didn't adress this. It contradicts that it was a good adaptatoin of the book because it caused so many scenes that were against the book.5. Caspian: I would like to quote Pro here, "The addition of Caspian in that scene served to seften his character and add an interesting addition to Caspian's character. It paints a better picture of Caspian's loyalty to his subjects. " What I believe Pro said here was that the scene added more to make this charactor look better. These traits are not in the book. In the book, Caspian had to learn a lesson from Aslan. The movie added unnecessary charactoristics to Caspian that were never mentioned in the book.