One such point regards the green mist that kidnaps slaves from the Lone Islands never to be seen again. Now this mist isn't itself found in the novel - the book is rather episodic and so would lend itself much more readily to a TV series. It actually seems to be drawn from two elements of the next book - "The Silver Chair". Here the main plot is that Caspian's son has been kidnapped, and later on it emerges he is kept sedated / enchanted by a witch using green mist.
What struck me in watching this device in play was the similarity of the effect with Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 film The Ten Commandments. There a similar looking mist crawls along the ground, only rather than an undisputed force for evil, it's intended to represent God's Angel of Death, only rather than entrapping slaves as it does in Dawn Treader, it is liberating them. The parallel highlights the troubling nature of the text and, as a result on this occasion, DeMille's adaptation.
I don't have much to add to what I said in my review about the link between Aslan and Jesus. The Jesus/Aslan of this film at least is much more the divine figure / Great Lion of faith than the Aslan of history. That's fine, although it doesn't interest me quite so much. The film loses some of the point of the book which is very much about a voyage of faith anyway, although I was pleased to see that the line about Aslan being known by another name in our world remained intact.
There's one final thing to say about this film. After watching it I watched the review of it on Film 2010 starring Claudia Winkleman. She ended with the astonishing statement "We should also warn people... there’s a lot of religious symbolism...". I'm pretty miffed about this in honesty. I get that it's probably a "joke", and I worry that by objecting to it I might end up sounding like Lord Carey, but for goodness sake.
Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode gave her a bit of stick about this today, mainly along the lines of it being such an obvious statement that a CS Lewis film would contain religious symbolism.
For me though, it was the implication that religion is such a bad thing that people need to be warned off it which left a rather unpleasant taste in the mouth. People are of course entitled to their views (however snarkily phrased) but this programme isn't about discussing religion per se, nor is it about Winkleman's personal opinions.
To be fair she may have been intending to criticise the film for it's heavy handed handling of the religious themes and the lack of subtlety it displays in this regard. I do agree actually agree with this, sort of, although this trait is more down to the book than the film. But if this was her intention then it was expressed most clumsily, which does rather reinforce the low opinion I formed of the show's new approach during the first programme in the series.