While I agree that the Lone Islands sequence could use more details and the slavery subplot felt completely tacky, it could all be written off to the evil power corrupting those with power who lived there. Explanation for the Green Mist isn't really needed either, here's Evil, here's how to defeat it, go do it. Fine, it's a fairytale, that's how it works. The problem is that there is a vague plot upon a vague plot. It's easy to let either one slide but not so much when there are two of them.

I am willing to overlook this, since the movie is otherwise very enjoyable and well done, but I can see how people might have problems with these plotholes.

I haven't seen the movie yet, nor do I have the book in front of me but I don't believe there's a reason given the book for the Dark Islandall the evil around it either.

You're right that there isn't any reason behind it in the book either...however I never quite got the feeling that the Dark Island was particularly evil though. It just seemed to be an island where another fantasy element was brought to life with a negative twist - water turns things to gold, dreams come true, etc.

However, back to your original point - the Dark Island is different in the movie because it's the chief villain of the story and is actively going out and eating things...in the book it is merely a cloud that just sort of sits there. The cloud doesn't need justification to sit there, but it feels like there should be some explanation of why it wants to eat random souls and to steal all the light from this world.

The difference is, Book!Dark Island is just a place where dreams come true. There's no real malevolence there and no particular reason to think it's sentient, much less evil. Movie!Dark Island is evil, is sentient, and wants to destroy the world. It's one thing to never explain where a natural albeit weird phenomenon came from, another thing entirely to never explain the motivation of a sentient evil monster that came from nowhere and wants to take over the world.

I thought it was okay, although rather vague. I don't agree that it should've been the one true reason that they went on the voyage but as an addition it was decent enough. I can think of many other parts of the movie to take issue with.

The seven swords were "OK". Not as distracting as I thought it'd be. It was watchable. The green mist was definitely more distracting, I wish that had been cut- although it wasn't horrible either.

I know! The green mist was very obvious and didn't mesh with the background. It was very obvious - "Ooh, green mist. Cue the temptation scene!"

In general I was ok with it. I like the idea that Rhindon sort of had "Brother" or "sister" swords. It seemed like they were forged in the same design.

I am sympathetic to the purists who will cringe over all this stuff, but I got what I wanted. It was a movie that was fun to watch that still incorporated many of the key scenes and ideas from the book.

I didn't like it. But you know what the worst thing is? They could have cut it out and it would not have hurt the film at all! In fact, it would have been good.

The film makers added the 7 swords plot to give a sense of urgencey, but it did not do that at all. I didn't even understand why they have to collect the swords. They could have cut it out without it being noticiable at all!

I still have no idea why they added it considering it did nothing.

I think the seven swords plot did add a kind of glue to the movie that made it stick together as a whole. The problem came when the filmmakers felt like they needed to bash people over the head with the temptation theme.

If the temptation theme had been subtext (which it would have been if the mist hadn't kept showing up), the seven swords would have worked fine and the movie would have been better. In my opinion, anyway.

I think the seven swords plot was pretty good, it wasnt a huge majo catastrophic diviation and it was a nice addition. Its not like it ruined the whole movie or anything, they did it smoothly and it fit right in.

I don't have a problem with the swords at all. The swords were fine. The problem was the mist. Clearly the mist was supposed to be the villain of the story. On a list of movie villains, the mist is clearly one of the worst. (And I don't mean that in a good way). It's disembodied, totally unfrightening, badly developed, is ALL EVIL, but also temptation and fears embodied.

I didn't think it ruined the film, but since movies are defined by plot, the general viewing public is going to be puzzled by VDT's poor grasp for an exciting plot that falls flat on its face.

I found Josh and Gymfan's comments most illuminating. Their theory really explains why the mist ended up being the overarching plot of the story.

To me, the seven swords plot was not developed very well and superficial.

I could see why they put in the Seven Swords plot, but I really think they could very well have had an episodic film and not needed to have something to complete at the end, i.e. having all of the swords at the table. Each of the islands had a mini-plot of its own. Part of me is wondering whether this really should have been made for TV instead of film, having more screentime (in episodic structure) would probably have served this book well/better.

I did go in to see the film today with very lowered expectations.

The swords were fine. The problem was the mist.

Ditto. The swords in and of themselves were not too much of a problem (although their origin makes no sense at all), but they exist to stop the mist. A mist of all things! A random Green Mist in the Eastern Sea that is taking over the world through Temptation! is the villain. It didn't make sense before I saw the movie and it still doesn't make sense.

On their origin though, Lord Bern said the swords are from Narnia's Golden Age. If they're from the Golden Age why don't Edmund and Lucy know about them??? And why does Coriakin know all about it? And why didn't he send someone back to get Lord Bern's sword? There was absolutely no point in sending the other six lords on ahead while Lord Bern had the other sword back at the Lone Islands.

Although I reeeally didn't like it, I can understand why it was there. I loved everything about the book, but movie watching people tend to want more action and predictable things than people who read books.
But they did do it better than I thought they would, from the trailers. So it didn't seem totally random. It still bothered me, but I was able to deal with it. ._.