-The colors at the beginning of the film, set in England, were deliberately chosen to be dull and muted, to contrast with the bright and vivid colors of Narnia. They compared this to what was done in The Wizard of Oz.

-Caspian's accent was changed to be consistent with those around him. So in PC, filmed in central Europe, his accent was different than in VDT, when he worked with people who spoke English as their primary language (mostly, Aussies).

-Many of the island and 'sea' shots (including the Aslan's Country beach scenes) were filmed out-of-doors to take advantage of natural lighting and changes in weather. A notable exception was the entire Dark Island sequence, filmed on a soundstage.

-A real seagull (not CGI) appears in the scene where Eustace tries to talk to the bird.

...either Johnson or Apted said that they added the mist because "every great adventure needs a villain, and this book didn't have one." (paraphrasing)...I'd love to get an exact quote.

Here's what I transcribed when listening to it:

"...one of the problems you have with the film is that there isn't really a villain in the story, and all good adventure stories have to have a villain. And so, for this, is the green mist, that is our villain."

Mr Apted goes on to describe the mist as a unifying plot point and makes the connection to SC that Kira mentioned above.

Also I think they hint at the fact that it was aimed at a younger audience this time (ages "5 and up" to use their words )

And thats what sickens me about the way this series is heading. They should be filming it for "ages 8 and up". Many five year olds still watch Barney! The Narnian films shouldnt be catering to that audience!

And i'm not saying they should cater to teens/adults either. They should just make good films that faithfully capture the books and appeal to everyone EXCEPT toddlers and very young children who can't even comprehend the themes of the stories without their parents having to explain it to them.

I am still surprised when the production sinks to new depths. It should not surprise me that they said they were targeting 4-year-olds...but it does. It surprises me that they actually admitted that.

Lewis said that if he enjoyed a book as a child but not as an adult, it was not worth reading in the first place.
VDT is a film that might be an effective distraction for little kids as their parents prepare dinner or something, but it has no other value. Pure commercialized rubbish.

The level of quality and maturity in VDT is so much lower than what was expected that is has taken me months to fully grasp it. I was caught completely off guard. What we have here is a throw away spin-off that belongs in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart next to Tinkerbell 2. How did this happen?

I honestly don't see how VotDT is a 'kids' movie. sure, it's more family friendly as they say, but VotDT book isn't perticularly violent to begin with.
but the movie still has older elements in it too. the sea serpent isn't exactly cute and temptation is something that everyone, young and old deals with.

just my two cents

Yeah, there may be a few different examples that there's a couple things that older people may like, but still, VDT was pretty much all about 5 and up. The story in the book may not have been as dark as SC's or LB's, but it was very entertaining because everyone all ages could read it and like it. This time around, they failed at that, and just like I think that Apted missed the way that SC works (people that are slaves of the LotGK? ACK! ), it appears he and others missed the age limit of the books. 8 and up or even 10 and up might've done this film more justice...

And yes, you can learn about temptation all ages, but really, do you need to teach us like that? It was never VDT's vocal theme anyway, so because they overdid the "temptation = pure evil" thing, we lost a lot of the original heart of VDT and I felt like a 5 year old. From now on, if I'm tempted, I'll scream, "Oh no! Where's the GM because I'm tempted?"

I honestly don't see how VotDT is a 'kids' movie. sure, it's more family friendly as they say, but VotDT book isn't perticularly violent to begin with.

It's a kids movie because it was made for an audience that would get bored if they didn't keep up the pace. It's also full of plot holes, and lacks anything resembling subtlety. As for the sea-serpent...Well, I never said it was a good kids movie.

The book is slow, subtle, and nuanced. The film is none of those things. Take the Lone Islands sequence for example. In the book, Lewis carefully thought-out a step-by-step way Caspian could abolish the slave trade without using force. Instead, he cleverly tricked Gumpas. The movie threw all that in the trash and instead added a sequence involving not only force, but fauns doing front-flips and slapstick humor with Eustace.

but VotDT book isn't perticularly violent to begin with.

The level of violence isn't really relevant to my main point, but I'd recommended reading the undragoning again really carefully (and then compare it to the movie) if that's how you feel.

From now on, if I'm tempted, I'll scream, "Oh no! Where's the GM because I'm tempted?"

Exactly. This is such an anti-Lewis, anti-books concept, and it's all throughout the movie. Thematically, the whole movie is based on the idea that evil is an external force. There was no green smoke to blame in the first two films. It was the characters' internal flaws.

but VotDT book isn't perticularly violent to begin with.

The level of violence isn't really relevant to my main point, but I'd recommended reading the undragoning again really carefully (and then compare it to the movie) if that's how you feel.

I did in fact just read it. in the book, the undragoning scene is only in there when Eustace tells Edmund about it. if the movie had done it like the book, then it would not have been shown at all. they showed it in the movie though. so there's no violence in that respect (IMO) because Eustace only says that Aslan dug His paws into him, but there's not discrition of blood or anything gory. the book is, in my opinion, the least violent Narnia book, HHB being the second.

I did in fact just read it. in the book, the undragoning scene is only in there when Eustace tells Edmund about it. if the movie had done it like the book, then it would not have been shown at all.

By that logic, the filmmakers should not have shown most of PC. Because in the book, four chapters are told in flashback as Trumpkin tells the story.

In a book, saying something happened is just the same as seeing it actually happen. Because in both cases, you picture it happening in your head.

But, again, the level of violence is not relevant to my main point. The issue is more about maturity, in terms of depth in characters and story.

Even though the Voyage of the Dawn Treader didnt have tons of violence, it had a much more mature feel and handles it's themes way better than the movie.

I initially thought VotDT was okay, but very dissapoiting. But now when I think of the future of the series and how much in paled in comparison to the source material and the preceding movies, I have grown to disliking it to the point where I get angry.

Honestly, why? Why did Walden throw away their greatest franchise by trying to cater to a 4 year old audience? Why?

Get back on topic please.

Well one interesting detail was that Johnson and Apted apparently got in a fight on set at one point .......I'll try to post some more notes after I listen to it again

I must have missed that. I'm going to have to listen to the full commentary without breaks. I wasn't really as enthused this time with the commentary and skipped around with it because I knew the kids weren't on it. Another Eustace tidbit that was interesting was how Will P. works himself up to do an emotional scene. Apted asked his mum how he gets worked up for an emotional scene and she said as an example he thinks of something bad from school. He did this same sort of 'technique' for Son of Rambow too. Really still amazing that he was acting with practically nothing (tennis ball on stick, furry stand-in toy) sometimes in the scenes with Reepicheep.

It is hard for me to understand by hearing English without subtitles though, I enjoyed the commentaries.
Also I miss the cast commentaries.

I was interested in ...

The bird that Eustace talked to was a real seagulls.

It was Mark Johnson's idea that Eustace smiles at Reepicheep after their fight on the deck.
I love the scene and I think that was an essential scene for express a relationship between them.

An additional shot of Will P. on the scene at the Aslan's table.
I watched VDT 6 times in the theater though, I didn't notice Will P.'s hair was different and his growth at that scene.
But, on 7th time in Blu-Ray with the commentaries, I noticed it (I thought, oh, Eustace's head looks like recent Will P. head!!) just before the explanation for it.
Now, I think they have succeeded in hiding his growth, but not in hiding his hair difference by the green mist.

^^ yeah I love how they were able to use a real seagull! it's so cute

I noticed Will's hair right away when they said that it was shorter!!!!! I hadn't noticed it before then

I thought that seagull didn't look very cgiish

I just wish they made a behind the scenes video of it... that would have been awesome.

I thought that seagull didn't look very cgiish

You mean based on the 1.5 seconds you see it? It went by so quickly, I had no time to judge if it was real or not. That's interesting, though.