Nope. Very little of it.

I thought about the invisibility thing...but it was too silly (I have stronger words, but I don't want to be reprimanded) to dwell on. Just another one of those weak attempts to tie everything in the movie together.

Honestly, I'm wondering how much we need to be blaming Michael Petroni or Michael Apted for this stuff. Markus & McFeely didn't do this badly with PC. I'm just wondering where the heck all this stuff came from. Green mist? It's so...arbitrary.

Good catch, glum. I actually didn't think about Coriakin's line as being about the mist, though now that I think about it it was quite foolish of me to think it meant to protect them from their self-hatred. (I know, I know. It makes no sense. I don't think I was examining the dialogue well.) This is just one of many times in the film where the original plot of the book was re-sculpted to fit the concept of the "green mist" and unfortunately made awkward and illogical in the process.

The only thing I could possibly say is that Coriakin's wanted them to confront their fears and temptations before destroying the mist in order to make them stronger (?), but that doesn't make much sense because without the existence of the green mist, they wouldn't be tempted, right? This begs the question then--what is this green mist? Is it supposed to be evil incarnate? If not, what is it's direct connection to evil? It doesn't even make sense within the realm of a magical world to have a force tempting people that isn't either evil itself, or a being that started out neutral and turned to evil by choice.

glum, I think you mentioned in a video that it could be gathered that the mist had a mind of its own and it just...enjoyed tempting people. It just doesn't make any sense because, since it's origins are never explained, we never understand its relation to evil. Is it the physical manifestation of temptation or, like Satan, simply something that has bent its will to evil?

The worst thing I think about the concept of the green mist is that we're left with too many questions about it--so many questions it becomes impossible for us to buy into the possibility of its existence.

To answer your question--Coriakin couldn't make the crew invisible because then the filmmakers couldn't have a gratuitious sea-serpent fight scene.

I got the impression that being invisible did not directly protect them from the Mist, but rather that being invisible would protect them from their own vanity, and that as the Mist feeds of such thoughts that it would therefore not be able to corrupt them.

Though if that were their intention, i don't understand why they didn't just insert a few additional lines of dialogue to explain as such, rather than leaving the audience to extensively read between the lines to guess at what the likely explanation was. Wouldn't of made the greatest of improvements, but it would of been a start.

Wasn't the line something like "it seemed the best way to protect them from the evil"?

Is there any suggestion in the movie that the Dufflepuds are struggling with vanity?

Wasn't the line something like "it seemed the best way to protect them from the evil"?

Is there any suggestion in the movie that the Dufflepuds are struggling with vanity?

Good quote.. And think about it's meaning.. He didn't say it WOULD protect them, only that it might be the best way to protect them. The Dark Island is obviously more powerful than Coriakin, so he is doing only the best in his ability to protect his subjects.

I assumed that Coriakin wasn't worried about the Dufflepuds being tempted by the green mist. But about them being "eaten" or taken by the green mist, as were the slaves...

I hadn't thought about Coriakin's comment as problematic before. I was assuming, "Oh their vanity." But it didn't really have that in the movie itself, the more I think about it..that was from the book. I felt like that whole scene was rushed. I was looking forward to seeing them riding out in the waves on their monopods and they didn't show it.

I think Trufflehunter's made a good point. It does seem like Coriakin was worried more about the dufflepuds being "eaten" by the mist than tempted. Which raises another question: how does the mist choose what to devour and what to simply tempt? Wouldn't it have been far easier for it to just devour the whole crew?

The problem with the dufflepuds' vanity is that if I (or any of us, really) hadn't read the book, I doubt I would have even thought of it. It's another important detail lost to anyone who hasn't read the series.

^ That's a really good point. Why didn't the mist just devour the Dawn Treader?

I always felt like Coriakin was saying he wanted to protect the Dufflepuds from being devoured. But even if he was talking about temptation, the plot hole still remains.

Good quote.. And think about it's meaning.. He didn't say it WOULD protect them, only that it might be the best way to protect them. The Dark Island is obviously more powerful than Coriakin, so he is doing only the best in his ability to protect his subjects.

Coriakin thinks the best way to protect the Dufflepuds from the mist is to make them invisible. So why not show the Dawn Treader crew how to become invisible? That's what he would do if he wanted to protect the Dawn Treader crew to the best of his ability. And I have no idea why because the movie never tells us, but for some reason Coriakin seems very intent on helping the Dawn Treader destroy the mist. The plot hole remains.

Which raises another question: how does the mist choose what to devour and what to simply tempt? Wouldn't it have been far easier for it to just devour the whole crew?

. Wow. That stings. I hadn't noticed it before, but you're right! Not only was the Green Mist a dumb idea, but it makes no sense!

Another thing, which I DID notice, was that the Dawn Treader crew drags poor little Gael with them into the Dark Island when they could have easily left her and Rhince at Ramandu's Island where it was safe. Yet another proof that Apted's Caspian lacks not only judgment, but brains.

^ That's a really good point. Why didn't the mist just devour the Dawn Treader?

I always felt like Coriakin was saying he wanted to protect the Dufflepuds from being devoured. But even if he was talking about temptation, the plot hole still remains.

Good quote.. And think about it's meaning.. He didn't say it WOULD protect them, only that it might be the best way to protect them. The Dark Island is obviously more powerful than Coriakin, so he is doing only the best in his ability to protect his subjects.

Coriakin thinks the best way to protect the Dufflepuds from the mist is to make them invisible. So why not show the Dawn Treader never tells us, but for some reason Coriakin seems very intent on helping the Dawn Treader destroy the mist. The plot hole remains.

The plot hole does not remain. Coriakin is not totally sure how to protect the Dufflepuds. Otherwise he would have instead said 'it IS the best way to protect them'... Saying that it 'seems' to protect implies doubt.. Uncertainty. Besides, even if invisibility would protect anyone from the mist, who wants to live their life invisible.. I know I sure wouldn't. It stands to reason that it's easier to do anything (including defeating the Dark Island) when you can see what you are doing.

I think the real question is: does being invisible protect you from the Green Mist's sight? If so, then yes, Coriakin was a bit of a cheapskate not invisibilitating the whole DT crew.

If being invisible was to protect the dufflepuds from their own vanity, the only additional person Coriakin should have put the spell on is Lucy .

In response to the question of why Coriakin did not turn the crew of the Dawn Treader invisible, I'm thinking that unless he could have turned the ship (acting as a complete organism) invisible and allowing there to be some sort of ship-sized invisibility cloak where everyone "under" it could still see each other, he would have had to turn each individual person invisible. It would be pretty difficult to man a ship if the Captain and the crew could not see each other. They'd most likely be all bumping into each other. Did anyone get the idea though that the dufflepuds could all see each other?

The last hope for Coriakin's logic was maybe that he just thought it would be much harder for a crew on a ship to operate properly while invisible than it would be for a bunch of funny little men to keep a garden.

Of all the changes in this movie, this is the one I understand the least. With all the others the movie makers had some excuse, whether it be a good one or a bad one they at least had one (well except for Eustace floating into the air, but we can discuss that in a different thread.)

This change doesn't seem to have any purpose. I mean I guess one could say it kind of helps the green mist plot, but ultimately it didn't really accomplish that. Even if it did, the mist plot could have stood well enough on it's own without it. You could have even stuck closer to the book and said that the mist caused the dufflepuds to sin in the first place, and then make the rest like the book... That would have at least been more intriguing than, "oh he just made them invisible to protect them from the mist"

Secondly, how is making them invisible going to help at all? Wouldn't the mist know theyre there anyways? It certainly seems powerful enough to.

And as gP said, why didn't Coriakin just make them invisible then?

So yeah this is really the only change that makes abesolutely no sense to me.