Never, in all my years of frequenting this site, have I seen a mistake of such proportions implemented, rather than a correction made. From the beginning, the title of this classic film has always been correctly given, as it appears in the credits: "The 3 Worlds of Gulliver." BIZARRE.
shareAgreed. I've submitted a title correction multiple times, but the IMDb staff have refused to change it. I don't think this film has EVER been called "Gulliver's Travels", and it certainly wasn't the original title.
sharei was curious too about the title. i just saw this movie for the first time today.and i enjoyed it but i didnt understand the ending because someone called me on the phone and i lost track. can u help me with the ending? also i loved the squirrel pulling gulliver into the hole. im just getting into ray harryhausen im gonna do more research. i thought this was gonna be another wizard of oz ending.
shareLike you, I am a HUGE Ray Harryhausen fan, and have 8 of his films on DVD, including this one, which, I feel, is criminally underrated. In any case, the ending is, rather incongruously, like “The Wizard of Oz,” as you thought it might be. I say “incongruously” because, as I recall, when they wake up on the beach in England, a normal-sized knitting basket is next to them (this being the real world equivalent of the giant-sized one into which Glumdalclitch had put them). Elizabeth asks Gulliver, “What about Glumdalclitch?” “She’s waiting to be born” is Gulliver’s cryptic response. As a child, when I first saw this (back in 1975, when I was not yet eight), I thought this puzzling; now I view Gulliver’s comment as a cynical one: that no one in the real world is so free of prejudice as Glumdalclitch was.
Stephen
P.S. I got to “know” Kerwin Mathews over the years. You can read my posts to find out more if you like. Cheers!
Since I was a child seeing this in the theater, I understood it to mean that they will someday have a child and give her that name. She risked so much for them that I supposed they would give their first child that name to honor her.
Was I a stupid child who misunderstood? (When it was in the theater *I* was about 8 years old!)
(W)hat are we without our dreams?
Making sure our fantasies
Do not overpower our realities. ~ RC
You must have been born in 1952 or so, if you saw it when it first played in theatres. If you thought of such an interpretation when you were only 8-years-old, you were an even brighter kid than I!!! (Haha.) In all seriousness, though, I do think that my view is the correct one; however, I think that your interpretation would be perfectly valid if Kerwin Mathews had said the line with a smile and exuberance: "She's (just) waiting to be born!" Just my thoughts.
share