The Instigator
CountBolkonski
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Arrow
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,211 times Debate No: 23050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

CountBolkonski

Pro

Greetings and thank you for this debate! :)

This debate will be on whether or not "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was a good portrayer of the book.

"The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" refers to the Fox production, rather than the BBC film.

My job will be to show that "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" was, in fact, a good portrayer of the book and did a good job representing it.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to a great debate.
Arrow

Con

Thank you for opportunity to debate this topic, which I believe will be very interesting.

My job will be to show that "The Voyage of the dawn Treader" was not a good representation of the book and did not do a good job portraying it.

I hope this will be a fun and very interesting debate.

Now lets get this debate underway!
Debate Round No. 1
CountBolkonski

Pro

Let's get the debate underway!

First of all, I would like to begin by saying that the movie was not absolutely perfect. The film was not a word for word direct transition from the book. That is granted. However, I will be arguing how much of the storyline and the themes presented by the movie were good portrayers of the themes presented in the book, and thus make the movie a good adaptation.

O.K., Let's begin with the basic storyline.

Both the movie and the book center around Edmund, Lucy, and their cousin Eustace Scrubb. They are transported from Cambridge, England, into the land of Narnia, where they are rescued by Prince Caspian and the crew of the ship The Dawn Treader. There, they embark on a mission to rescue seven lost lords of narnia, who disappeared into the eastern sea many years prior to Casian's coronation. Caspian sets out to find the lost lords and to seek out new lands for the realm of Narnia. They end up finding out the fate of each of the lords (five survived and two had been killed), and discover many islands and have many adventures in the process. In that way the book and the movie correlate completely. The same storyline permeates both works and serves to tie them together.

I will now move down to the important changes made for the movie and show how they really portray the themes presented in the book.

First of all, we have Edmund's desire to be "a king" and to have power and influence. The book really is mostly silent on this issue, which could lead us to believe that the whole bitterness and temptation of Edmund throught the movie is awkward and unnecessary. However, the book reveals, while the characters were at the island of Deathwater, Edmund is tempted by tresure and the power that it brings, and begins to fight with Edmund, alomst leading them to their demise. The temptation of Edmund throught the movie just serves to show further the power of greed, jealousy, and selfishness if you allow yourself to let those feelings inside.

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. With a limit for the movie on appriximately 2.2 hours, there just isn't that much time to include all that extra sailing and extraneouscash expense. Nothing from the book was lost with regards to original intent.

Third, and probably most importantly, the supposed purpose of the quest was, in essence, changed a ways through the movie to a mission to collect the seven swords of the missing Narnian lords and to lay them at Aslan's table. This is coupled with the goal of destroying a mist that represents evil. Now, this may seem like a HUGE stray from the book. It appears that, halfway through the movie, they sort of smashed the plot. However, on investigation, the themes portrayed from this plot change actually exemplify the themes found in the book. 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. The same is true for the movie. As coriakin the magician says in the film "To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself". The mist in the movie sybolizes evil and the temptation of that evil. Throughought the movie, the children learn to overcome that evil and to trust in Aslan. The mist provides a visual picture of what the book says.

The movie, though not EXACTLY like the book, was a good adaptation. It stuck with the main themes and the story-line. When however it did differ, it was to show more clearly the intent of the book. I would strongly urge a vote for Pro.

Arrow

Con

The second half of the first round is underway!

Before I begin, I would like to thank Pro for the overview of the movie which helps with the clarification of the debate. 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. For all the reasons presented this round, I stongly, but respectivly, urge you to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
CountBolkonski

Pro

I would like to begin this round by pointing out that Con agreed with my entire statement on the book and movie overview and correlation. We both agree that the book and the movie follow the same basic plot line.

That said, I will now address Con's arguments, refute them, and present to you once more how the movie was a good adaptation of the book.

1. Edmund: Con stated "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." I would like to point out that having someone appear to have better character in the book is not a real argument. Edmund had a great character flaw in the book, that of greed. The same is true with the movie. The difference lies in the length of time. The sudden appearence of Aslan at Deathwater is understandable in the book, but in the movie, the overrall effect was to show more fully how reliance on Aslan can allow Edmund to overcame his character flaw, perhaps to an even better extent than in the book. Additionally, I would disagree with the assertion that "it puts him on the same level as Eustace was". Eustace was obnoxious, but I would NOT claim him to be a villain in any way. Edmund's flaw was greed, Eustace's selfishness andcowardice, and Lucy's vanity. All of the children overcome these and learn to trust in Aslan to an even fuller extent.

2. In response to Con's argument "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?" It is not for me to relate to Con the expenses involved in movie production. The movie cost millions to produce, and to scout out an entire new island set, set it up, and get the scenes right would cost many thousands. Also, with today's short attention span, I don't think a 3 hr. movie would be that riveting, regardless of the subject matter. With regards to con's treasure question, I would point out that it is insignificant and unsubstantial. The book doesn't answer the tresure question either, so you can't expect the book to solve that mystery.

3. With regards to the green mist, I would see this essentially as an agreement by Con. He stated that the green mist served to provide more adventure to the story. How is that a bad thing? He stated that it was a waste of time and money, but I have yet to understand how the green mist undermines the themes and intentions of the book. Con should explain if he thinks that it does. The mist provides a more visual picture than the book provided, allowing greater perception of concept by the audience.

Now moving down to Con's arguments.

1. Eustace: Now, to state it once more, I never contested the fact that the movie altered certain portions of the book. That is undeniable. But my argument is that it was a good adaptation of the book. Con needs to show how his points contradict this. As for Eustace, I would say that the length of time he is a dragon does not affect the effectiveness of the adaptation. However, to go on the point, I would say that Eustace's endurance of a dragon allows the audience to more visually see Eustace's turn around. The book relates this part of the story more from Eustace's perspective, and the section is not well suited for screen. It really would be very difficult to provide a visual representation of his change more holding to the book than what was provided, and I think it would be impossible.

2. Caspian: I would like to respond to Con by saying that the presence of this scene would not deny the representation of the book in the movie. Caspian, in the book, had a violent outburst at the prospect of not going to the end of the world. 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.

I believe I have successfully countered the arguments presented by Con. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (Movie) was a production that adequately followed the book and successfully retained and even added on to, positively, the themes presented by C.S. Lewis. I would therefore urge a vote for Pro.


Arrow

Con

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.

I hope I have adequately refuted Pro's arguments and have shown that the Voyage of the Dawn Treader (movie) was not a good representation of the book so I would urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 3
CountBolkonski

Pro

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.
Arrow

Con

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.

I hope I have adequately refuted Pro's argumets and I urge a vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.