The ending: good or bad? - The Flight of Dragons (1984) Discussion

[–] Pirateswench 18 years ago

i thought it was great...even if he had figured out another way to defeat ohmadon he wouldnt have been able to stay in the magical world...it wouldn't work so i think that was a perfect ending

reply

[–] JesseStipek 18 years ago

I thought it could have been better if they stayed true to the original battle in "The Dragon and the George". It was still a good scene, even if it was a little corny.

Though, the music that Maury Laws composed and the first half of the movie surely makes up for it.

Those are my thoughts,

Jesse

reply

[–] Grapefruit13 18 years ago

How does the battle in Dragon And The George go?.... I really have to find a copy of this book!

I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.

reply

[–] mfranc-1 18 years ago

The Flight of Dragon's pivotal fight had Peter and Ommadon going head to head in a battle of wills (Science versus magic).

The Dragon and The George's pivotal flight was waged on several individual fronts. Without giving too much away, the main protagonist had to assemble a team of companions to fight the creatures being gathered by the forces of darkness (It's cliché, but it works). Each had a specialty that matched up with a particular opponent. The battle was of strength, wit, and endurance.

reply

[–] Grapefruit13 18 years ago

So the science versus magic aspect wasn't in Gordon Dickson's book at all?

I have nothing to say, I just love this hat.

reply

[–] mfranc-1 18 years ago

The science versus magic aspect was between the main protagonist (Jim) and the sage Carolinus. Jim is a 20th century man of higher learning adapting to a new world and clashing with its "laws of magic". This is lightly and humorously touched upon in the Dragon and The George and developed further in the sequels.

reply

[–] lryo 18 years ago

The ending most definitely sucked. I saw this film back when I was 6 or 7 years old and even then I remember thinking that the ending was ridiculous.

As for the previous description of the ending:

"The Flight of Dragon's pivotal fight had Peter and Ommadon going head to head in a battle of wills"

It's been a while since I saw flight of dragons but I don't remember there being any head-to-head battle of wills. Just some nerd yelling science words while the villain writhes in pain.

Peter: Zoology!!
Ommadon: Ahhhh!! It burns!!
Peter: Biology! Advanced Calculus!!
Ommadon: Nooooo! I'm undone!!

I just reread that last bit and it's hard for me to believe an ending could be that bad. If I'm somehow remembering it wrong, let me know, but I've got a sick feeling that this is actually what happened.

reply

[–] girlingreen 18 years ago

Oh yeah!
I forgot about that last part (i too, saw the cartoon when I was about 6 or 7)
when you put it in print, the ending does seem a bit silly.

I supppose the moral of the story was about how knowlege triumphs over ignorance or some nonsense like that.

I remember feeling the ending was a bit unrealistic, when Peter returned home and the princess joined him in his world.
What was she going to do?how was she going to survive in this new world?
Those questions really bothered me at the time and now after 15 odd years, it's back again!

"Lehmunade! do you see anyone coming?"
"The answer is a lemon.."

reply

[–] AiresTheBold 18 years ago

what really bugged me was the brief bit with carolinus riding Gorbash, in the skys of boston. i mean, the UFO spotters would have a field day with that!

It's life, Jim, but not as we know it...

reply

[–] edthehead78 18 years ago

The entire ending was a little weak. Bringing back all the other characters after seeing them getting brutally killed sort of stripped away at the sadness it had created in the first place.

reply

[–] maxbenson 18 years ago

I disagree, I think the ending was perfect, because Peter had to make a sacrifice (being forever cut off from the world of magic) all while using his greatest asset - his mind. Since Ommadan pulled all the evil of the world into one spot, evil being an abstraction, had to be defeated by an abstraction, a.k.a. 'words' or 'logic'.
I get the feeling that when I saw this at 5 yrs old, it might be the reason I love Science AND Fantasy both so much as an adult now :D

reply

[–] Professor_Plum 15 years ago

Yes, the movie was completely realistic up until the very last scene...

reply

[–] dezzfarah 18 years ago

I loved the whole movie!!! Ending and all. Part of watching any movie is the temporary suspension of disbelief. Yes, the movie involves/inculdes things that would not be possible or part of our reality, but that is the great thing about film, theatre, the arts in general. They have the ability to take us to a completely new world, to help us forget the necessary, but boring/agravating/harsh reality that we deal with day in and day out. What fun would there be if all movies, plays, art, etc were ONLY able to be created within the confines of the everyday. There would be no imignation. Don't get me wrong I love movies that are based on true stories, I love documenteries and so on, but if I had to choose I would choose those movies that allow me to momentarily live in a world where the usual "laws" don't apply. Come on, when you were kids you can't tell me that you didn't at least once wish that you could use magic or something of that nature. As adults we have a tendancy to lose touch with that sense of wonder and that's why these types of movies are so important, specifically BECAUSE they are NOT realistic.

reply

[–] lryo 18 years ago

Morons.

MaxBenson: Your rationalization of a completely stupid ending is very kind but gimme a break. "Evil being an abstraction had to be defeated by an abstraction, aka 'words' or 'logic". What the hell are you talking about?! How does the fact that "evil" is a general concept translate into: Reciting words saves the world? Could the evil guy have fought back by reciting stupid concepts i.e. totalitarianism!! alchemy!! tantric sex!! Or maybe he could have countered the main characters use of "abstractions" (like you call them) with concrete words i.e. Leather Cowboy Chaps!! Metal Rake!! The fact is that this ending leads you down a short road to complete idiocy.

Dezzfarah: Are you high? No one is saying that a movie can't involve magic or unrealistic elements. We're just saying the ending was stupid based on everything leading up to it. Just because a movie is fantasy doesn't mean the plotline and the ending don't have to make a god damn bit of sense. Even in a fantasy movie, the story has to follow whatever fantasy universe rules the movie has laid down.

Let's say at the end of Return of the Jedi when the Emperor had Luke's lightsaber, instead of using the force to grab his lightsaber, he whipped out his penis (which happened to be glowing neon green) and he defeated Darth Vader in a dueling match, glowing penis vs. lightsaber. IT WOULD BE RETARDED. Same as the stupid word game was at the end of Flight of Dragons. "Suspension of Disbelief" doesn't not mean "Initiation of Stupidity", Dezzfarah.

reply

[–] AlianoreAquila-1 16 years ago

I'm 18 and saw it for the first time just last fall on youtube, so I don't have the fond memories of it that some of you do. If it was The Last Unicorn that had a bad ending, for instance, which I've grown up with, then I'm sure I'd be able to overlook it due to the memories of watching it as a kid. Please note I'm not saying The Last Unicorn had a bad ending. I was just using it as an example. Anyway, I don't have those fond memories of watching it as a child, so my emotions have nothing to do with my opinion. The "battle of wits" at the end of Flight of Dragons was utterly ridiculous. I laughed myself silly and had to go back and watch it again afterwards because I couldn't hear it the first time due to my laughter. Even though it also made me wince a bit, that anyone would allow a movie to end like that, it provided a bit of entertainment at least.

reply

[–] LaserFloyd 15 years ago

I thought the ending was as good today as I remembered it when I was 5 years old. That part of the movie distinctly sticks out in my mind because Peter was able to defeat this grotesque monstrosity with only words. The pen is mightier than the sword, anyone? I'm biased because I'm a science nut and if I were a cartoon character I'd be Peter Dickenson. Even my wife said that...

If he'd done physical battle he'd have been trounced.

If he'd done magical battle the story wouldn't make any sense at all because he's there to split the real world from magical. Duh?

He couldn't run away or we'd still be watching the movie...

It really had to end that way. There are variations of how he could have spouted out logic, numbers and sciences but that was really about the only way 'this' movie could have ended. I'm sure some people would rather have Peter taking out a large automatic weapon and wasting Ommadon as explosions go off all around him due to previously placed plastic explosives because that would make so much more sense...

Though if he did that and didn't decounce magic Ommadon would have turned the weapon on Peter and oops, lets get an eraser and end it the right way shall we. :)

Why did mere words defeat Ommadon? It was the inevitability mentioned earlier. Ommadon knew it was going to happen and he fought furiously to keep his realm and powers. Remember the part where he said that antiquity still must have picked Peter for a reason? Yes, Ommadon knew his demise was approaching but as such he wasn't going to roll over and take it.

Once he confronted Peter personally his incarnation became extremely vile and vicious. At this point Peter knew all he had to do was denounce magic and tell Ommadon he was full of it because all of things he wants to do he can't because they're physically impossible. I also imagine none of the other characters were affected by Peters words simply because they were all sleeping or dead.

The ONLY thing I'd have ask for more of is emphasizing the power of his words, perhaps with some vocal effects, echoes, etc. Then again, he's a nerdy little science person and without the right equipment, eh, he has no way of actually doing that. Maybe if we were to hear it from Ommadon's point of view?

As far as the characters returning to life goes, eh, that's questionable. Sir Orin didn't go around and take all of their pulses to make sure. So we can't determine whether or not they were all just out cold and Orin was just being overly pessimistic. :) Another way to perceive it is that maybe once the evil magic of Ommadon was destroyed that it reversed what was done. Also, who is to say that the other wizards didn't just bring them back to life for fighting so valiantly? I'd have been fine either way but I think a child prefers happy endings and this is a childs movie, IMO.

I think it's most important to remember that one thing; that this is/was for kids. They packed a lot of stuff into a small package. Some parts were slightly rushed or glazed over but it all seemed to work just fine. The animation wasn't the best but honestly I could care less about that. It was the story that captured my imagination.

I think I can even attribute being deeply interested in science to this very movie. BTW the Shuttle docks with the ISS in about an hour! See? :P

Lastly, some people can do better to get their points across without insulting other people. Believe what you want but the 7.8 stars says a good bit about this lesser known gem of a movie!

reply

[–] goldberry99 16 years ago

I think the ending was good, it could have been great if they had made it more specific.

When Ommodan and his six headed dragon body are facing Peter and Peter says "Nothing so terrible could be real", well in the world of science that type of animal can't physiologically exist. Same thing when Ommodan says he can pull down the sun and Peter explains that scientifically he can't pull the sun out of the sky.

The world is turning from magic to science, since the powers of the other three wizards are waning, yet Ommodan's are growing. What Peter did is directly confront Ommodan's powers with science(directly, not just by yelling "Calculus" but pulling the sun from the sky with magic and pulling it out of the sky with science). Ommodan's magic and science can't coexist, so they go the way of the rest of the magic world. Perhaps they disappear right away because the illusion is shattered so suddenly, not slowly over time like the powers of Carolinus.

It's good when you think of the moments the writers chose a direct magic vs science duel, but I agree when Peter clenches his fists and yells "geology" it's lame. It would have been great if he had demolished Ommodan by explaining why he can't physiologically send laser beans at him, he can't just sprout six heads, his lungs would collapse at that size if he were held to the physical laws of the universe, etc.

So that's why I think the ending is good, and makes sense, but not great because they went away from the specific to the general and it got melodramatic. "Algebra!" "Meteorology!"

reply

[–] Hasek 16 years ago

C'mon, wouldn't it have been redundant if he kept up his explanations...he needed to get more intense and long sentences would've sucked the intensity out of it imo. Maybe it doesn't make perfect sense but it's not as bad as people make it out to be. Quality rationale though the post above.

reply

[–] wight1984 13 years ago

But that still doesn't make sense.

It's not scientific to declare that something empirically observable doesn't exist. It's also not scientific to think that something only become impossible when you realise that it's impossible.

Either Ommodan can or can't pull the sun from the sky, whether or not Peter points it out shouldn't change the scientific truth of the situation.

reply

[–] wight1984 15 years ago

I dunno.

To be honest, I did find the shouting out scientific disciplines to lack punch, but the real issue for me is that it doesn't even make sense.

Science isn't something that makes things true because you believe in it and if Peter really knew that much about science he'd know that.

The idea that something impossible only ceases to exist once it's impossibility is realised is like suggesting that a person only falls after walking off a cliff after they realise that gravity is true.

It's an unfortunately silly idea out of tone of much of the rest of the cartoon.

reply

[–] JRuined 15 years ago

I think the speaking of scientific laws and theory made sense. It's the logical antithesis to the chants/spells of Omadon. They provided the means by which to break through the magic of the old world by weakening it with logic, as shown at the beginning of the movie, much to the embarrassment of Carolinus. Whether or not you liked the ending is a matter of opinion really, because it does stick to the laws that govern the story.

If anyone can think of a more logical conclusion please enlighten those of us who don't find that it interferes with our enjoyment of the movie.

reply

[–] wight1984 15 years ago

Except that if Peter really understood and believed in the laws of science, then what he is saying makes no sense.

A scientific mind wouldn't approach that situation in that way.

reply

[–] Cryptfan2 15 years ago

That was a weak ending. Talking about science does not kill someone with magic. I dare Peter Dickison to say to Sauron only to find his face get in contact with a mace.

Plus, I do not forgive the idea of the author putting himself into the freakin' story. It does not compute, that's a Gary Stu. Gary Stus do not equal good writing.

"While guys hold on to their toys forever, girls soon throw out their playthings."

reply

[–] Invalid_Litter_Dept 14 years ago

That was a weak ending. Talking about science does not kill someone with magic. I dare Peter Dickison to say to Sauron only to find his face get in contact with a mace.

Of course, because the imaginary logic of one fiction naturally applies to another fiction. On another note, the Hulk could TOTALLY kick Superman's ass, whereas Data wouldn't stand a chance against the original Cybermen.

Plus, I do not forgive the idea of the author putting himself into the freakin' story. It does not compute, that's a Gary Stu. Gary Stus do not equal good writing.

The author didn't put himself in the story. Peter Dickinson - the real author of the book, The Flight Of Dragons, in real life - wrote an exploration of how dragon biology could conceivably work, based on the notion that dragons were real. It's not a novel or a narrative, it's a (pseudo)scientific work and he's not actually in it.

The screenwriters created a character based on him - VERY loosely based: a Bostonian student, whereas the real Dickinson is English - and inserted him and his theories into a story based on another book, The Dragon And The George. So there's no Gary Stuism involved and nothing to forgive.

Now cure me of my madness or I won't put my shoes on, ever.

reply

[–] monkeymechx 13 years ago

Sure he would. A scientific mind would dissect the laws at play in a world of magic, find the best way to use them, and consequently create in practice devastating magic that used the best of both realms to the advantage of the user.

In magic, to know the true name of something is to have that things power. That's called invocation. To invoke the strongest technology of Peter's age, an age that was much more enlightened and reasoned than the fearful days of chaotic magic, would in my opinion be a perfect counter to the wildly unreliable dark magic Ommadon relied on.

The final battle was a metaphor for new vs. old, or magic vs. technology, that was a constant theme in the movie. Carolinus illustrated for us that new cannot live successfully without old, and that the best world was created with a mixture of both new and old, magic and technology.

In the final battle, we see that Ommadon was too reliant on magic, whereas Peter was able to combine and use both. Peter was so adept at the balance of the arts that he ultimately overwhelmed Ommadon's lacking in science and even overpowered his fearsomely strong but unbalanced magic. This harks back to the original idea I brought up earlier: you need both sides to flourish.

The whole idea of needing a little bit of both sides brings to mind the essence of the balance found in the original novel--which was in danger of being thrown out of balance, and was the cause for the quest in that novel.

So with all of this in mind, I find the ending of the movie to be good, and in its own way, a tribute to the themes of The Dragon and The George.

reply

[–] wight1984 13 years ago

Sure he would. A scientific mind would dissect the laws at play in a world of magic, find the best way to use them, and consequently create in practice devastating magic that used the best of both realms to the advantage of the user.

That's not what happened. It's spelt out fairly clearly what is actually happening.

In magic, to know the true name of something is to have that things power.

Magic is a fictional concept that varies by culture and mythology. The concept of 'true names' is not mentioned in this film's depiction of magic.

In the final battle, we see that Ommadon was too reliant on magic, whereas Peter was able to combine and use both.

That's just untrue. Peter denied magic. That was the whole point of the scene; he even makes it explicit. He doesn't use both, he supposedly denies one to rely exclusively on the other... apparently proving that science is stronger than magic.

The whole idea of needing a little bit of both sides brings to mind the essence of the balance found in the original novel--which was in danger of being thrown out of balance, and was the cause for the quest in that novel.

The George and the Dragon? It's probably worth bearing in mind that this film is only loosely based on that. (The book carrying the name 'Flight of Dragons' even more loosely).

reply

[–] monkeymechx 13 years ago

That is what happened. Saying it didn't (even when it was shown that he deconstructed elements of the magical world beforehand with logic) doesn't make it so.

It doesn't matter if it wasn't mentioned directly, the wizards in the movie constantly used invocation in their spells. To be able to evoke the true name of something invokes a person with power. That's why the magical spells in the movie consisted of words and names and chants. They were using true names and chants to do magic. Perhaps a review of the movie would reaffirm this to you?

Peter didn't deny magic, he used scientific items as totems and then used them in a very magical way to overpower Ommadon. It is not science to just mention names and then have things happen... It's magic. He used a balance of both logic and magic to arrange power from items of the future to stop Ommadon. It was the best of both worlds: logic created unorthodox magic that Ommadon simply could not stand up to.

It's worth bearing in mind I just got done reading the book (source material that was heavily used in the movie, even if the plot was different) so I was able to make these connections. The characters were the same, the setting was the same, and the dynamics were mostly the same. Both the film and the book make connections between a balance between different forces in the world, both have main characters that are a combination of new and old, human and dragon, science and magic. Thus it was not a leap to see the same dynamism at play in the movie.

reply

[–] wight1984 13 years ago

It doesn't matter if it wasn't mentioned directly, the wizards in the movie constantly used invocation in their spells. To be able to evoke the true name of something invokes a person with power. That's why the magical spells in the movie consisted of words and names and chants. They were using true names and chants to do magic. Perhaps a review of the movie would reaffirm this to you?

I've watched the film countless times. There is no reference to what you are talking about. This is somethng you have projected onto the film. All you have done is speculate wildly but I see no evidence that it was part of the writer's intentions.

Peter didn't deny magic, he used scientific items as totems and then used them in a very magical way to overpower Ommadon. It is not science to just mention names and then have things happen... It's magic. He used a balance of both logic and magic to arrange power from items of the future to stop Ommadon. It was the best of both worlds: logic created unorthodox magic that Ommadon simply could not stand up to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw9bny88OuY

Starting at 2.35

"You are magic; mere illusion. I am science, logic and the truth. You don't frighten me; nothing so horrible could be real. I deny you!"

"Deny me and you deny all magic! Say it then!"

"I deny all magic!"

I don't know how you watched that scene and left with the impression that Peter was combining the two. The scene is set up very simply; Ommadon represents magic, Peter represents scicence and science is stronger than magic.

You're right that it's executed using a rather odd (/outright false) understanding of science but the writer's intent is pretty clear.

It's worth bearing in mind I just got done reading the book (source material that was heavily used in the movie, even if the plot was different) so I was able to make these connections. The characters were the same, the setting was the same, and the dynamics were mostly the same. Both the film and the book make connections between a balance between different forces in the world, both have main characters that are a combination of new and old, human and dragon, science and magic. Thus it was not a leap to see the same dynamism at play in the movie.

If you've read the book, The Dragon and The George, on which this film is loosely based on and are now projecting the themes from that book onto this final encounter then that perhaps reveals your mistake.

This is not The Dragon and the George, no more than it's Peter Dickinson's Flight of Dragons. It's a film loosely based on those two books.

In the ending, Peter Dickenson defeats Ommadon in a clash between magic and science by denying magic. It's explicit in the dialogue.

reply

[–] dont_b_so_BBC 12 years ago

So what's the consensus - good solution or bad?

Hmm, you've just watch a film about the relevance/importance of logic and the scientific method... and you are asking for a "consensus" to determine how good or bad the solution was?

PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT
=====================
The ending is actually a (melo-)dramatic interpretation of the debate between the philosophical disciplines/principles of (subjective) idealism and (objective) rationalism.

In philosophy, (subjective) idealism is a kind of "immaterialism"-- i.e. reality/truth only exists as ideas perceived by the mind... and it is the only kind of philosophy which would "support" Omaddon (& the wizards') ability to alter reality through their will ("I can reach out and pluck down the sun!""I command it!")

OTOH, (objective) rationalism is the philosophy that reality/truth can be determined by logic and reasoning, which is the basis (along with empiricism/experimentation, etc) for the scientic method... e.g. the way Sir Peter calculates/determines the speed of light, the distance between the earth and the sun, etc. without actually measuring or travelling to the sun.

FILM PREMISE
============
Within the "universe/rules" of the film, the wizards' subjective idealism can indeed be "externalized" and made to affect their external realities-- and Sir Peter even "accepts/succumbs" to their subjective/personal ideas of reality when Carolinus invites him... but as soon as someone knows enough to "challenge" the wizards' subjective/personal ideas of reality, the wizards have no longer have any power to alter them.

This is foreshadowed by Carolinus having no power over the water wheel which was invented/operated on objectively verifiable principles of physics/mechanics. Carolinus is concerned because this means that he also has no power over the ill/side-effects of water wheel (endangering the fauna) or other such inventions/creations. That's why he need a person like Sir Peter, who has a "foot in both worlds" (i.e. Sir Peter has the potential to learn "magic" as well as science)

PLOT RESOLUTION
===============
When Sir Peter "broke" Carolinus' spell by simply realizing/understanding that "two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time", he also realized (the film's premise) that the wizards' subjective ideas of reality can be objectively rejected by logic/reasoning-- so that their mere ideas/beliefs can no be "externalized" to affect the reality outside of themselves.

By the same token, Omaddon's power to affect reality can be challenged by someone who knows enough to see how it objectively contradicts the principles of physics, etc.-- which kills Omaddon, because his very existence as a wizard is dependent on this subjective idealism/belief.... which is why Sir Peter leaves as soon as possible so as not to "challenge/kill" the other wizards or "magical creatures".

COP-OUT ENDINGS
===============
But Sir Peter himself, much like all human beings, is a "paradox" which embodies both the principles of idealism and rationalism (which was why Carolinus invited him in the first place)-- and within the "universe/rules" of the film, he actually learns to "selectively apply" idealism and rationalism (aka magic vs logic) so that he undoes ALL of Omaddon's harmful deeds and even visits Melisande before returning to his own time!

Though the film really gets into shaky ground with the happy ending, when Melisande is sent forward in time to live with Sir Peter-- I mean, would Melisande suddenly into the past if Sir Peter ever challenges the impossibility of her time-travelling? I mean, what about Carolinus' plan to gather all magical things into the dome of invisibility?

BTW, regarding the OP asking for a consensus to determine how good or bad the solution was?

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT AD POPULUM!
(it's illogical to make a detemination based on populism)!

*POOF*

If you care enough to go around telling people you don't care... you obviously care.

reply

[–] heelmaster2000 12 years ago

I rather enjoyed the ending.

reply

[–] Grapefruit13 12 years ago

Hmm, you've just watch a film about the relevance/importance of logic and the scientific method... and you are asking for a "consensus" to determine how good or bad the solution was?

Nope, just wondering what the consensus of opinion was. I already said I liked it, and I was surprised to find other people found it a weak ending - I wondered whether this opinion was prevalent. I wasn't trying to *determine* anything about the film itself, just about the audience response.

Oh, yes, if a pig comes by Castle Dracula on a Tuesday, playing a banjo…

reply

[–] Drevnibor 12 years ago

Although I like fantasy and don't like math n' sciences and stuff... I found the ending to be very good.
Because, well, it was the only thing Peter could do.
The only way to defeat Ommadon was to weaken the Magic (i.e. ''World of Fantasy''), and he did that by ''stopped believing in it''.
He simply said: ''I believe only what science can teach me, I don't believe in magic''. And therefore, Ommadon technically didn't exist, and therefore, couldn't hurt Peter.
Yes, it's a bit harsh from Peter's side, especially if he know he could lost his love (Melisande) and his friends, because they were fantasy-beings, creatures of magic, not science.
Of course, in the end, he managed to keep at least a little ,,faith'', which allowed him to transport Melisande and him into the ''real world''.
But the risk was great of that never happening.
Still, Peter did what he had to do, and it proved right, in the end.

Ko to tamo peva (1980)
Excalibur (1981)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

reply

[–] denham 11 years ago

I can see how algebra, geometry, physics and chemistry could have Ommadon worried. Not so sure about sociology. Or homeopathy or feng shui. (No hang on, I think I may have dreamt the last two.)

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

reply

[–] bgrubb 9 years ago

The ending wasn't just bad but horridly STUPID as it didn't understand what Science really was!

Science is simply a way to explain how we think the universe works with a build in correction mechanic. Magic is the lazy way to explain how the universe works.

Horace Miner proved this in his deeply satirical 1956 paper "Body Ritual Among The Nacirema" where the then popular methodology of examining "primitives" believed in "magic" with a undercurrent of 'see how much better we are then these people' tone was used on the then current 1950s United States.

Every science or science based technology of 1950s United States is portrayed as "magic" in that article.

Chlorination of water to prevent disease is reduced to "the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure."

The hospital with all it hard learned scientific advances is reduced to a temple "that is where you go to die" with the nurses now "vestal maidens" and the doctors now "medicine men".

Scientific Medicine is reduced to "ceremonies" of "discomfort and torture" with "magic wands" (thermometers) and "magically treated needles" (antibiotics and medicines).

After his fellow anthropologist got the hint and actually looked at magic they discovered the only real differences was that magic didn't have a self correcting mechanic nor a set procedure for determining which concept best fit what was being observed.

In 1978 Isaac Bonewits wrote the first edition of Authentic Thaumaturgy which defined Thaumaturgy as "The use of magic for nonreligious purposes; the art and science of “wonder working.

In 1980 the printed version of Carl Sagan stated "If a fourth-dimension creature existed it could, in our three-dimensional universe, appear and dematerialize at will, change shape remarkably, pluck us out of locked rooms, and make us appear from nowhere." Sounds like magic doesn't it? But it is firmly set in science.

It doesn't help that Ommadon is basically an idiot. If he had any sense he would have used Sun Tzu tactics and challenged Peter's current scientific rules using now obsolete versions.

reply

[–] sleeping_gorilla 7 years ago

Not only was it good, I think it's one of the best endings ever. Peter has been brought to this impossible world, and his scientific mind has to reason out everything he's seeing.

It's like the ending of Labrynth where the villain behaves the way she made him and doesn't understand why she won't love the embodiment of this bad boy she has summoned. Peter always had the power to defeat Ommadon, but he has to sacrifice the world he wishes existed to save it. It's heart breaking.

Thor 2-Attack of the Clones-The 5th Element the trifecta of bad movies.

reply

[–] pioneergrrrl (2388) 4 years ago

"Inevitable" the young woman leaves the world of magic and adopts the world of logic. But instead of being sad she's left her family and everything she's ever known/grown up with, she is happy she has a boyfriend--and presumably a future husband. It is a new adventure and a different of adventure

She could not have undertaken it had she never left home. And maybe it's a little inaccurate to tell little children this--certainly we know relationships now come in all kinds and people do not have to be in a relationship to be happy.

But getting into a relationship was pretty obviously the end of this movie.

reply