Does anything in this movie make any sense?

Does John ch 9 make sense?

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

All sin starts with covetousness. The green mist is simply a visual aide in a kid's parable to illustrate the power and consequences of coveting.

Why are you making this so complicated? Do you hold the books up to this type of scrutiny? They also contain silly things, plot holes, and contradictions. I choose to overlook them and just enjoy the books for what they are. Fantasy.

I also find your signature presumptous and offensive.

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

I don't see why uncertainty matters. If I was not 100% sure if medicine would heal you, I'd still give it to you just to try. He tried it on the Dufflepuds, so why not try it on the crew?

But either way, I disagree with your interpretation of that line. "It seemed like the best way to protect them." He's saying that this IS a way to protect them. But he is not sure if it is the BEST way.

Imagine if you heard a movie producer say "This seemed like the best way to make the movie." Would that imply he was not sure if they made a movie? No, of course not. It would only imply he wasn't sure it was the BEST way.

You haven't responded to the other plot holes I pointed out: 1) If Coriakin made the Dufflepuds invisible to protect them, why did he stand there indifferently as Lucy said the spell to make them visible? 2) Or, at the very least, why did Coriakin not make them invisible again later?

Besides, even if invisibility would protect anyone from the mist, who wants to live their life invisible.. I know I sure wouldn't.

Uh... There is also a spell to make things visible again. Lucy says it. Something to do with "the P in Psychology" as I recall.

It stands to reason that it's easier to do anything (including defeating the Dark Island) when you can see what you are doing.

There would be no need to do any fighting at all if the mist isn't able to affect them. You could have one person in a rowboat go in and look for the sword.

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.

One or two people in a rowboat would suffice. The whole crew need not go (least of all, Gael! But they brought her along anyway)

On the subject of Gael, one could argue that they brought Lucy as well. But the fact is, Lucy is a Queen of Narnia and by now there's no other woman in Narnia more capable of handling this situation than Lucy. Gael is a child. Wasn't she 8 or something? Taking her into a battle they could easily have died in seems grossly irresponsible on Caspian's part. It reminds me of how on Star Trek: TNG, they insisted on dragging the crews' children along even though the ship regularly faced off against Klingons, Borg, and Romulans. I never could suspend my disbelief that a quasi-military force would be that irresponsible.

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

I don't see why uncertainty matters. If I was not 100% sure if medicine would heal you, I'd still give it to you just to try. He tried it on the Dufflepuds, so why not try it on the crew?

But either way, I disagree with your interpretation of that line. "It seemed like the best way to protect them." He's saying that this IS a way to protect them. But he is not sure if it is the BEST way.

Imagine if you heard a movie producer say "This seemed like the best way to make the movie." Would that imply he was not sure if they made a movie? No, of course not. It would only imply he wasn't sure it was the BEST way.

You haven't responded to the other plot holes I pointed out: 1) If Coriakin made the Dufflepuds invisible to protect them, why did he stand there indifferently as Lucy said the spell to make them visible? 2) Or, at the very least, why did Coriakin not make them invisible again later?

Besides, even if invisibility would protect anyone from the mist, who wants to live their life invisible.. I know I sure wouldn't.

Uh... There is also a spell to make things visible again. Lucy says it. Something to do with "the P in Psychology" as I recall.

It stands to reason that it's easier to do anything (including defeating the Dark Island) when you can see what you are doing.

There would be no need to do any fighting at all if the mist isn't able to affect them. You could have one person in a rowboat go in and look for the sword.

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.

One or two people in a rowboat would suffice. The whole crew need not go (least of all, Gael! But they brought her along anyway)

The uncertainty in the invisibility matters because if he knew for sure that it was the best way, then (like you said) he would have just made the whole crew invisible. Ultimately, the best way to be safe from the mist is to break its spell, but that didnt seem like a possibility until the crew from the Dawn Treader appeared on the island. So once PC and crew arrived, hiding from the mist was not as necessary because they were out to destoy this threat...which I feel would explain Coriakin failing to make all invisible again.

We are going in circles glumpuddle. It's no secret that you are unhappy with the movie because of the plot additions.. and I do stress additions, since most of the book is actually there. If you are unhappy with the movie, then that is fine of course. But your dissatisfaction with it is also leading you to nitpick this movie to death. I could nickpick the books just as easily and find just as much supposed inconsistencies, but I choose not to. Why? Because I love the books too. Why ruin it for all of us movie lovers?

Does anything in this movie make any sense?

Does John ch 9 make sense?

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

All sin starts with covetousness. The green mist is simply a visual aide in a kid's parable to illustrate the power and consequences of coveting.

Why are you making this so complicated? Do you hold the books up to this type of scrutiny? They also contain silly things, plot holes, and contradictions. I choose to overlook them and just enjoy the books for what they are. Fantasy.

I also find your signature presumptous and offensive.

I have to agree with this. I think if you look hard enough, you will find imperfections with any movie. In the end, these are great movies and I am happy enough for that. Thanks for your insight.

this comment made by Coriakin never really bothered me. and I'm not just saying that because I love the movie so much, nor am I saying that to be 'different' from everyone's comments. I just don't mind.
and who knows? maybe there's a deleted scene that explains it more?

this comment made by Coriakin never really bothered me. and I'm not just saying that because I love the movie so much, nor am I saying that to be 'different' from everyone's comments. I just don't mind.
and who knows? maybe there's a deleted scene that explains it more?

This could be a definite possibility given how many cuts the movie received. But even if it is not further explained, I am fine with how it turned out.

But even if it is not further explained, I am fine with how it turned out.

same here! it was just one of those moments that make me wonder, but didn't ruin the movie, nor did it confuse me! and the other movies have had fun moments like that. I was just watching PC last night and when Caspian says to Aslan, "We are ready. everyone has assembled." three Telmarine soldiers walk behind him. yeah.....everyone has assembled - except those guys.

Do we have to turn this into a philosophical argument? Isn't what Glumpuddle ultimately complaining about the artistic choices of the filmmakers? And yes, what they did to the book does connect to an aesthetic argument about meaning, but NOT this scene with Coriakin.

The problem is that the filmmakers made artistically illogical choices. Just from a script point of view, the story has a TON of holes in it. Mistakes are expected in every film. Jack Sparrow uses his handcuffs to zip across a wire even though it is physically impossible for him to have swung the handcuffs over the wire because there was no "entrance" for them.

VDT has an unusual amount of these kinds of mistakes: but they aren't incidental, they're integral to the story the filmmakers were trying to tell. Trying being the key word.

Nevermind John 9---it has nothing to do with the kind of sense that glumpuddle is discussing in the VDT film.

Similar defenses have been made for the plot of Star Wars: Episode 1: "Turn your brain off! Stop thinking!"

Why are you making this so complicated? Do you hold the books up to this type of scrutiny? They also contain silly things, plot holes, and contradictions. I choose to overlook them and just enjoy the books for what they are. Fantasy.

I would hardly call this scrutiny. It's a simple question I had when I was watching the movie. One of the reasons it is hard for me to connect emotionally with the characters in this film is that they often make illogical choices. LWW and PC didn't have this problem.

But to answer your second question, yes I have scrutinized the books closely (having read each book a dozen times) and they hold up well. Could you offer some examples of plot holes and contradictions from the books that are as big and significant as this one? Or perhaps from other fantasy franchises such as The Lord of the Rings? I couldn't disagree more with the idea that fantasy stories cannot make sense.

The uncertainty in the invisibility matters because if he knew for sure that it was the best way, then (like you said) he would have just made the whole crew invisible. Ultimately, the best way to be safe from the mist is to break its spell, but that didnt seem like a possibility until the crew from the Dawn Treader appeared on the island. So once PC and crew arrived, hiding from the mist was not as necessary because they were out to destoy this threat...which I feel would explain Coriakin failing to make all invisible again.

Being invisible would/might help them destroy the mist. I'm not saying they should become invisible and hide. I'm saying they should become invisible so destroying the mist will be easier.

The same logic that applies to the Dufflepuds also applies to the crew. There are two groups Coriakin wants to protect:
1. Dufflepuds
2. DT crew

For some reason, he makes the Dufflepuds invisible, but doesn't show the DT crew how to become invisible.

Jack Sparrow uses his handcuffs to zip across a wire even though it is physically impossible for him to have swung the handcuffs over the wire because there was no "entrance" for them.

Watch that scene closely. Jack takes the middle-chain part of the cuffs (which is unusually long) and folds them around over the wire. It seems unlikely that he'd be able to hang on to them and support his weight for that long, but there's no problem with the "entrance."

Do we have to turn this into a philosophical argument?

I believe "Does anything in this movie make any sense?" should answer that.
.....Nevermind John 9---it has nothing to do with the kind of sense that glumpuddle is discussing in the VDT film.

Oh the irony. You and gp are TRYING to be the intellectuals ( C. S. Lewis calls it acting like a grownup and not in a good way) and yet you are blind to the simple spiritual truth I pointed to.

John 9 has everything to do with what gp is doing/ asking. Humanly speaking, what Jesus did to the blind man was totally illogical. This is where the atheists say, "See, your god is a cruel god. First off, he makes this poor man blind for no good reason other than to show off. Then he humiliates him by rubbing mud in his eyes and making him walk across town to wash in a pool. He should/could have done this or this, blah, blah, blah..." And yet the blind man obeys without complaining and receives his sight. What a beautiful example and illustration of childlike faith.

VDT the movie, is like mud in some people's eyes. It stings, it's embarrassing, it's illogical, etc. Like the intellectuals in John 9, they don't believe this is from God.

We all believe Lewis was an amazing writer, but you can find atheists/ agnostics that will tear his arguments to shreds. At least, that is what they think. Paul realised that arguing with intellectuals was fruitless. (See, I still have faith in you guys. )

To summarize: gp is looking for logic where there is none or little. I'm saying: quit swimming around the surface, take a deep breath and dive down to where the pearls are.

I would hardly call this scrutiny. It's a simple question I had when I was watching the movie. One of the reasons it is hard for me to connect emotionally with the characters in this film is that they often make illogical choices. LWW and PC didn't have this problem.

Solomon with all his wisdom couldn't handle women. Totally illogical. Answer that, if you dare.

But to answer your second question, yes I have scrutinized the books closely (having read each book a dozen times) and they hold up well. Could you offer some examples of plot holes and contradictions from the books that are as big and significant as this one? Or perhaps from other fantasy franchises such as The Lord of the Rings? I couldn't disagree more with the idea that fantasy stories cannot make sense.
With your permission: Narnians that speak English, observe Christmas, do very little exploring/expanding (think of our own earth and population growth and movement), beavers with sewing machines (who made them, where are the factories), where do they get food from during the 100 yr winter, just a few off the top of my head

I am definitely absent-minded, but I don't believe I said that fantasy stories cannot make sense. I was implying that the sense is often camouflaged.

Take Passion Week for example. Endless discussions have been made over which day of the week Jesus was crucified. Christians have fought and separated over this and atheists have used it to try to discredit the bible.

One of my favorite quotes by Lewis is (paraphrased) - God is such a gentleman, that he gives people hooks to hang their coats of doubt on.

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

To recap, smartypie, we agree on this much: The mist-invisibility issue does not make sense. It is a plot hole.

Where we disagree: You think that all fantasy stories have these problems, and I do not.

With your permission: Narnians that speak English, observe Christmas, do very little exploring/expanding (think of our own earth and population growth and movement), beavers with sewing machines (who made them, where are the factories), where do they get food from during the 100 yr winter, just a few off the top of my head.

-Narnians speak English because their first king and queen were brought from our world. Also, when Aslan created them, he said “Speak. Think…” Aslan gave them the same language as King Frank and Queen Helen (who were from our world). This is likley the same reason they observe Christmas. The holiday came from the first king and queen.

-The sewing machine is totally insignificant. If Mrs. Beaver did not have a sewing machine, it would not change the story one bit. Whereas, if the DT crew used the spell of invisibility, it would drastically change the story.

-The food issue is another insignificant detail. Even if there was a scene where it was explained where they get their food, it would not change the story one bit. The plot of LWW has nothing to do with food. The plot of the VDT movie has everything to do with destroying the green mist, and invisibility would help them do that.

Here is an example from the VDT film of something insignificant that doesn't make sense: How have the batteries in Edmund's torch lasted 3 years? ... Who cares? It's totally insignificant. If the batteries were dead, it wouldn't change the story one bit.

Here is a hypothetical LWW plot whole: What if we found out that the White Witch’s weakness was snow, and this weakness ended up killing her? That would be a huge plot hole. Readers would ask “Why would she create a 100-year winter if snow was her weakness?” Whereas you might be saying "who cares, all fantasy stories don't make sense."

Do we have to turn this into a philosophical argument?

I believe "Does anything in this movie make any sense?" should answer that.
.....Nevermind John 9---it has nothing to do with the kind of sense that glumpuddle is discussing in the VDT film.

Oh the irony. You and gp are TRYING to be the intellectuals ( C. S. Lewis calls it acting like a grownup and not in a good way) and yet you are blind to the simple spiritual truth I pointed to.

John 9 has everything to do with what gp is doing/ asking. Humanly speaking, what Jesus did to the blind man was totally illogical. This is where the atheists say, "See, your god is a cruel god. First off, he makes this poor man blind for no good reason other than to show off. Then he humiliates him by rubbing mud in his eyes and making him walk across town to wash in a pool. He should/could have done this or this, blah, blah, blah..." And yet the blind man obeys without complaining and receives his sight. What a beautiful example and illustration of childlike faith.

VDT the movie, is like mud in some people's eyes. It stings, it's embarrassing, it's illogical, etc. Like the intellectuals in John 9, they don't believe this is from God.

We all believe Lewis was an amazing writer, but you can find atheists/ agnostics that will tear his arguments to shreds. At least, that is what they think. Paul realised that arguing with intellectuals was fruitless. (See, I still have faith in you guys. )

To summarize: gp is looking for logic where there is none or little. I'm saying: quit swimming around the surface, take a deep breath and dive down to where the pearls are.

If you are saying, "quit complaining and watch the movie" then I understand you. However, if you are hoping to make gP stop nitpicking the movies, you've got a loooong road ahead of you .

What I'm NOT understanding is why you are presuming my disagreement with you: on the subject of Lewis, the blind man, and the athesists, I can agree. I just don't get how that relates to our discussion of the movie. You're saying we're acting like pseudo-intellectuals because we're complaining about technicalities of a movie plot? I think you're really over-thinking this. I come to NarniaWeb for a bit of respite (my car's spark plug wires are loose, and they're devlishly difficult to put back in!)

If you are saying, "quit complaining and watch the movie" then I understand you. However, if you are hoping to make gP stop nitpicking the movies, you've got a loooong road ahead of you .
I'm a public school teacher. I have the patience of Job.
What I'm NOT understanding is why you are presuming my disagreement with you: on the subject of Lewis, the blind man, and the athesists, I can agree. I just don't get how that relates to our discussion of the movie. You're saying we're acting like pseudo-intellectuals because we're complaining about technicalities of a movie plot? I think you're really over-thinking this. I come to NarniaWeb for a bit of respite (my car's spark plug wires are loose, and they're devlishly difficult to put back in!)

I apologize for my "over-thinking". In a way, I am like gp because I can be over analytical at times. My wife is trying (for over 34 years ) to fix that.

I, too, come here for respite (my students' brains are loose and they too, are difficult to organize and tighten)

I was deeply touched by several scenes in the movie and therefore it is natural for me to get defensive. Think of being richly blessed by a sermon or song only to later hear fellow christians tear apart the minister or singer. It is hurtful. Don't underestimate the damage that can be done by the tongue (sword)

I was deeply touched by several scenes in the movie and therefore it is natural for me to get defensive. Think of being richly blessed by a sermon or song only to later hear fellow christians tear apart the minister or singer. It is hurtful. Don't underestimate the damage that can be done by the tongue (sword)

Similarly I, in reading the books, am deeply moved. Thus I get defensive about them and offensive towards the films .

I think its a good catch Gpuddle, on your part. It doesn't make sense, and it does bother me.

smartypie, I understand your feelings. I too can get defensive about things I love. However I think it is fair to say that one can love something and still criticise it (or let others criticise it.)

I don't think this would bother me if it was just this instance (or very few others) that left large plot holes. However this is just one of many.