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

I would also like to say that I agree with that entire statement and hopefully will not be an issue in this debate. I will be going over the arguments presented by Pro and talking about them one by one and show you how they actually favor the con side of the issue. Lets get started! Pro's first argument was on "Edmund's desire to 'a king' and to have Power and influence. " My argument to this is that according to the book, you basically never see any greed on Edmund's part except at Deathwater and it pretty much goes away after that. This makes Edmund look like he has better charactor in the book. The movie made Edmund look like a aragant and greedy person which demises his charactor in the book. Now, this might not seem very important, but, to my knowledge, Edmund is supposed to be one of the good guys in the book and the only bag guys are the sea serpent and, for awile, Eustace. By making Edmund like the movie made him, it puts him on the same level as Eustace was, which, I am sure, was not the intention of the book. The same could also be said about Lucy. By making her envious pretty much the entire time until she burned the paper, the movie demised her charactor as well. Pro's second argument was on the combination of deathwater and dragon Island into one volcanic island and said that it would have taken too much time, money, and effort to make it into two islands. The question I have for Pro is, how much more money and time, do you think, would have been needed to make it into two islands. Another question is, where did all the dragon's treasure come from. The island was deserted and volcanic with no inhabitants, how did the treasure get there? Pro's third and final argument was about the green mist and how it "symbolizes evil and the temptation of the evil. " My argument to this is that as pro said, "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, that is, the book, centers around the growth of the three main characters. Lucy, Edmund, and Eustace all have problems in their lives, be it greed, envy, or hatred. The book revolves around adventure, yes, but also around the overcoming of the evil they possess. They learn to trust in the lion Aslan to overcome. " Now if the book did this which I believe is what Pro believes, then why did they need to put in the green mist? 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. 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 about the seven swords the only thing I have to say is without the mist, you do not have the swords. Now that I've gone over the Pro's arguments, I will bring up some more arguments that show more big differences between the book and the movie. First, is the length of time Eustace was a dragon. According to the book, Eustace became a dragon on Dragon Island and was healed by Aslan on dragon Island. 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. My second argument is that Caspian went with the children and Reepicheep to the end of the world with Aslan. According to the book, Caspian wanted to go but Aslan ordered him to stay and start on the journy homeward. By bringing Caspian along, you bring in unnecesary scenes to the movie like Caspian having to decide whether to go to Aslan's Country or not. I hope I have adequatly refuted the arguments brought up by Pro and have brought up more examples on why the movie did not adequatly protray the movie.