MovieChat Forums > Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991) Discussion > was there are real need for this film?

was there are real need for this film?

posted 18 years ago by MDSR
17 replies | jump to latest

it's pretty much the same as the first one, until the ship comes along, i couldnt believe they had made the same film again, with a few changes, then with the arrival of the ship, i thought the story would get a twist, which it did in a way, i just wish they'd shorten the first part, and taken more interest in the 'civilised' people arriving, turn it even more into a critisim of society, made the people stay longer and develop complecations, or have them shipwrecked and create a new tipe of story or even got those two back to civilisation. but if this is an adapotation of a book, what can you do.

[–] dzerted_island_grrrl 18 years ago

It's not even an accurate adaptation. In the second book, "Dick-Em" (aka Richard in our story) was dropped off on the island with his grandfather (Uncle Arthur), and a sailor named Kearney (one of the few accurate things in the movie). Soon after, Arthur wanders into the woods and dies. When Richard is around his teens, a Kanaka islander from the island that is only barely visible from the top of his own is shipwrecked with a broken canoe on their island. She teaches him her language, and eventually lures Kearney to his death. And by the end of the book, they've gone back to her own island. So, the movie had nothing to do with the book whatsoever. But I like it anyway :D

------------------
Radio: If only we were all weiner dogs, our problems would be solved!

[–] twin_ears 18 years ago

I agree. This is more a re-make than a sequel and was utterly unnecessary. There was nothing wrong with the first one and it appears the intent here was simply to make money.

[–] limeblue 18 years ago

I think they made this movie because the ending of the first movie was a little vague. (So, were Em and Richard dead or only sleeping?).

This movie answered that question.

But other than that, it was a total waste of time and money. I thought the first film was bad enough.

This was even worse. (Unless the pervs get excited seeing those nude shots of a young and nubile Mila J., there was nothing exciting about this movie.)

[–] zephyrcelestia 18 years ago

What DID happen? I haven't seen the sequel and I rather don't intend to, but yanno. I'm curious.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nshine 18 years ago

Uh Hello? I totally thought it was worth it! And it is a little bit better for younger audiences. I mean it doesnt have any nudity but still some content

[–] Falconeer 12 years ago

No nudity? Which version did you see?

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

Oh, yes, as well as all other sequels and remakes (and this one is unusually successful in being both in the same time). You know why are they made and who needs them.

In my defense I can only say that I've watched it on TV, so spent nothing except some (forever lost and regreted) time.

[–] starlight_x_x 17 years ago

i love the first movie iots brill! this one just kills it, there was no need and its not a sequel its a remake with minor adjustments.

[–] przgzr 17 years ago

I'll keep my statement - it is both remake and sequel. Maybe authors should be respected for that (and that alone, I'm afraid), it is a very rare combination they succeeded to make. Though so many things are repeated, some even in details, that it is surely a remake, you mustn't overlook the fact that some of first part characters appear (at least in memories) in second one, and there is a strict time line that binds the plot of the movies, so it also a sequel in its original meaning (more than many other famous number twos, threes etc that often share nothing but name and producers).

[–] SheWillRememberYourHeart 16 years ago

It's more a sequel than a remake, I think, as some of the elements from the original film that appear here are present for a sort of "correction", if you will. Most evident is the shark theme - a shark drove Richard and Em to their deaths, but their son manages to out-swim it, becoming "Master of the Reef".

Another example is the murderous natives. In the original movie, they're a threat that's never addressed. Here, Richard Jr. confronts one of them and he's powerful enough to be the "bigger man" and let the man go unharmed. Richard Sr. never even got close to being in such a position.

But most of all, while Richard and Em choose to stay on the island rather than return to civilization and they pay the price for thir choice with their lives, but Richard Jr. and Lily choose to stay and get to live.

I think some people involved in the making of the first movie probably really needed this "correction" and that motivated them (at least in part) to make this movie.

I used to have a , but damnit do I want a !

[–] robbieouzts 13 years ago

I agree with most of you this much more of a remake than a sequel even though this more common today some movie sequels will mention something that far as we know did not happen in the original(for example the recent non cartoon Hulk movies). I don't know if any you read the first book but the 1980's movie is much more accurate to the book than any of the earlier movie versions. While this movie (as mentioned) has a few things right about the second book most of the parts are are very different from the 2nd or 3rd books. In my opinion it is because both of those books seem darker than movies or the first book. While I like both movies I prefer the 1980's movie to its sequel.

[–] emuir-1 9 years ago

The 1980 film was a remake of the wonderful 1949 film starring Donald Houston and Jean Simmons, which was filmed in the South Pacific. I think it was Fiji. For the people in grey war ravaged Britain, the fabulous technicolor and tropical island setting made this film a dream.

[–] blocherd 13 years ago

Well it was a refreshing look at the next generation, but it could've used a few more twist to it! I propose a plot for the next sequel suggesting that they advance the characters by 10 years, reveal that a baby boy was born 2 years later, and make the children the main focus like a 'Swiss Family Robinson' style!

[–] nina-oh-nina 10 years ago

I wanted to see what happened to the kid but in no way did I wanna see another shipwrecked on an island movie. I wanted it to be more like Pocahontas part 2. I wanted the boy to be rescued and raised in civilization and struggling with the culture or maybe to find out that he had an inheritance that his parents were supposed to get or something like that

[–] TheChamCham 10 years ago

Brooke Shields' mother did not want her to make the sequel which would have Em and Richard and Paddy return to San Francisco, not fit in with San Francisco society and Return to The Blue Lagoon. When Brooke Shields dropped out they decided not to recast, putting a willing Christopher Atkins out of a job.
The original cost $4.5mi. and made $58mi. The second cost $11mi. and only made $2mi.
If Teri Shields had been smart she would have just asked for more money and a percentage of the profits.

"I say,open this door at once! We're British !"

[–] DNAboi 10 years ago

This sexual reminds me of Grease 2

"Lifes a bitch then you die"

Ben Foster is my Dream husband
Ryan Gosling is my Dream Lover