MovieChat Forums > Flight of the Navigator (1986) Discussion > First 1/2 was great. Second 1/2 was WTF?...

First 1/2 was great. Second 1/2 was WTF???

posted 14 years ago by savvysearch
23 replies | jump to latest

I remember seeing this film on tv not knowing what it was about and being so engrossed. The first 1/2 of the film was captivating with a great premise of a boy going missing only to return unchanged for 10 years. While watching it, I kept thinking that this was going to be a magnificent movie watching the mystery unfold and the family dynamic of the kid fitting into society again and possibly the stress of unwanted celebrity.

And then cute animatronics appear and he's flying through space with cute robots with cute voices and then then becomes a film with the most wasted potential EVER in cinematic history!!!!!!!

could have been such a magnificent film.

[–] cosmic_quest 14 years ago

I think they didn't know how to end the film but I too would have preferred to see more of David adapting to a world that has moved on without him, particularly having a kid brother who is now older than him.

Still, I think it remains an enjoyable enough film though it could have been so much more.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

[–] jgrv-1 14 years ago

To the OP: I couldn't agree with you more!

I just happened to see the movie for the first time last weekend, and from the start I was captivated. I thought it was going to be really great.

And then came the second half of the film. Biggest waste ever.

[–] mentor397 14 years ago

It's a Disney movie. Did you not expect to see cute somewhere?

[–] cool302 14 years ago

agreed mentor397 huge fan of this movie, love disney dude!

[–] mamamiasweetpeaches 14 years ago

I agree. The two halves dont equal a satifying whole!

Why even bother telling us he liked the little girl on the bike ("Jennifer") if he wasnt gonna then see her again when he was still 12 and she was 20?! Him trying to adapt to being in the 80s would have been movie enough.

Visit My Website:
LIVING IN THE PAST
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6spdi/index.html

[–] Frosted-Flame 14 years ago

I saw this movie as a child and owned a copy. I saw it as an adult again last night, and having gained some sophistication (only slightly) i was fascinated by the first half, a fantastic premise, but I knew what it would go into. Watching the ship getting claimed by NASA, finding the weird info stored in his brain, this was a great sci-fi film in the making, then as if Disney took control at the point after the kid uses the RALF robot to escape into the hanger it all goes downhill about a kid who fuqs around in a space craft all over the earth before returning home and Max turns into Paul Rubins (though in sci-fi theory it makes sense cause in hte memory transfer he collected a bit of his personality and behaves at a 12 year old's level it makes sense since he had no other reference point in Human Behavior) it just plunges into the ocean to use an analogy that references a point in the film. I'd really hope the remake goes more into the sci-fi territory and less into the retarded kids film. But props to the filmmakers to not making the NASA officials evil as might be the temptation in a Disney production. True, to kids the NASA officials breaking their word about the 48 hour agreement, honestly in their position if you found uncharted star maps in a kids head and information that will turn change NASA and possibly humanity forever, it had to be done or at least can be understandable. As much as I dislike the ending, it's Disney, there had to be a happy ending. But i liked the touch of him still keeping the creature, with his little brother's reaction, to let the audience know it wasn't a dream.

When You Do Things Right People Won't Be Sure You've Done Anything At All

[–] brainybrailler 14 years ago

I remember this...I wished there could've been more to him sparring with the robot. They don't really explain why the robot calls him "Navigator" when they "first meet" - I guess because he needs the information he's got in his mind, but...One thing that's not so easily answered is: why, if he remembers nothing, does he know the robot is calling him for help and remembers it as "he" when he's got no memory or sense of ANYTHING when he finds the ship?

[–] crowquill 14 years ago

While I haven't seen this movie in years, I stumbled upon this in the trivia section:

"Not originally a Disney movie, the film was being made independently when midway through production the main production company, Producers Sales Organisation (PSO) collapsed. Walt Disney acquired the production in a liquidation sale, picking up all film rights for this film and several others, and also putting up the finance for its completion."

That could explain a lot.

[–] tylerdurden389 14 years ago

You guys are crazy. I enjoy the second half of the movie more because it captures your imagination. When I was a kid I wanted nothing more then to fly that ship.

[–] Buzz-Duh 13 years ago

The creator of this thread needs to watch the Explorers for a true second 1/2 WTF. The movie was about kids building a homemade spaceship. The whole movie was a huge build up that only resulted in one major letdown once they finally made it to the alien craft. And yes, it was 100x campier than FOTN once they met the aliens.

The movie Contact also comes to mind when I think of letdown endings.
--
Youngblood II: Racki's Revenge

[–] Sabinfujin 13 years ago

Exactly. Everyone here wishing it would have delved deeper in the the social aspect of fitting in with the 80s is completely forgetting the demographic this film was made for: Children.

When I was a kid, I remember how I COULD NOT WAIT until he got into that space ship and had a blast exploring everywhere. People here are making it out like the part where he escapes in the RALF as the tipping point in the movie where everything went wrong, but as a kid I was like "YES YES YES GO TO IT!".

If you were looking for some deep emotional social struggle in a freaking Disney movie of all places.....you apparently don't have much experience watching movies.

I'm 26 now and I can still see it for what it was: An adventurous romp for children. I mean come on, this was released during a time when The Goonies and other adventure flicks were all the rage with kids.

[–] savvysearch 12 years ago

"If you were looking for some deep emotional social struggle in a freaking Disney movie of all places.....you apparently don't have much experience watching movies. "

That's bull. It's a film from the 80s. Many of us watched this film on TV recently not knowing prior that it's a Disney production or having seen the trailers.

When you set us a film in a certain way, you have to carry the mood and atmosphere of the film to the end. It's just good filmmaking. It's being consistent. It's because we ARE EXPERIENCED in watching movies that we can spot the rug being pulled out under us.

By the way, I was a kid when I saw this on TV. Even as a kid, I saw through the crap that was the second half of this movie. Just because the demographic is children, doesn't mean kids lack the need for a good story.

[–] CosyCatNap 9 years ago

I agree. I think I was 13 when I recorded and watched this for the first time but then decided to erase the tape. Now I remember why.

But I have love in my heart - Yes, as a thief has riches, a usurer money

[–] viper_48089 13 years ago

They don't normally film a movie in sequence though.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fatpie42 13 years ago

Ever seen "From Dusk Til Dawn"? I think you're sort of right that the second half doesn't work with the material from the first half. They seem to be two entirely different styles of film. Still, I must say I actually liked both halves a lot.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]