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

This is the last argument in this debate round so I will only be refuting Pro's arguments.1. Edmund. Pro basically said that it isn't diminishing his character because it is only mentioned in two scenes in the movie which are also in the book. I would like to point out the scene at cambridge and Edmund acting selfish never appears in the book. In the book we see that the one and only time Edmund looks selfish is at Deathwater. In the movie it added more than that. Now this does diminish Edmund's charactor because in the book you have and Edmund that only has one outburst and Deathwater with Caspian. In the movie, you see Edmund in this state several times. The more times you see scenes with him in this state, Edmunds character gets worse and worse until his redemption at Deathwater and Dark Island. I believe that this is a very bad adaption. Now the Edmund Eustace comparison. Pro said, "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. " I believe that the fact the Edmund is annoying or not is up to the viewer to decide. To me he as annoying as Eustace. To another viewer, he could be much worse and not as bad. Pro also said, "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. " After what I have just written, I believe that Edmund's Character was greatly altered and was a bad adaptation of the book.2. The Green Mist. Pro said, "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. " what I meant by a big waste is that if the only point to the green mist was to add emphasis on the temptation, it was a waste, because I believe the the book had this in sufficiency. That is what I also meant by the waste of money and time. About the reliancance on Aslan, Pro said, " 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. " I would like to point that Edmund did not rely on Aslan for redemption. As I said in my privious argument, "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" Aslan had nothing to do with Edmund's redemption. Finally on Pro's visual argument. What I meant by this was, of course the movie is more visual, it is on a screen where you can actually see it. In a book, you have to use you mental imagination.3. Eustace. Pro only said on this issue that it helps the viewers better understand Eustace's change. Pro has still not countered my argument on the adding of unneccesary scenes. The reason this argument was brought up in my first argument was to show that unneccsary scenes were needed. Pro has still not talked about this issue. I also believe that the length of time in the book was adequate enough for anyone reading it to understand. If the movie had kept Eustace's dragon time the same as the book, I believe that the viewers would have got the same picture.4. Caspian. My first point in this final argument is that Caspians loyallty to Narnia in not illustrated in the book as Pro says. In the book he was forced to turn around and I believe that he still had reluctance on not going. So if this is true than the character traits were unneccessary and unneeded. They are unnecessary because Caspian didn't even go and therefore gives and idea of Caspian that was never presented in the book.