Those berries (spoilers) - The Blue Lagoon (1980) Discussion

[–] BoSoxRule 16 years ago

Forever, they were dead at the end.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

They weren't dead at the end of this movie. They were dead at the beginning of the next movie.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

reply

[–] BoSoxRule 16 years ago

Same thing, xeno. Apples and oranges.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

reply

[–] mierluin 16 years ago

I think it was meant to be ambiguous - and it's only in the sequel that the qeustion is answered (and no, they don't all die)!

The book is even more ambiguous... it certainly isn't as easy as "yes, they were dead"!

Personally I like to think that the answer depends on the person watching the film... my first watch of the film initially had me believing they'd be ok, my wife assumed they were dead... different strokes and all that!

There's no more room in hell...

reply

[–] movieluvobivious 16 years ago

IN the end of the first film they think that baby Patty has died from eating the berrys so they eat them to to kill themselves but the berries only make you sleep not die. They are found on the boat and the film ends.

However in the beginning of the return the are found drifting in the same boat but dead than the man aboard says that there is cholora a deadly desease amidst the crew which is what they died of and the baby was much older than at the end of the last one meaning that they died in a diffrent time frame than the last film and that when the people came to get them they didnt go. The fact that they have the same name. This was based purly on the writers stupidity.

reply

[–] t_fairy64 16 years ago

the sailor who checks to see if they're dead says "no, they're just sleeping."
so, obviously, they all still have pulses and are still alive.

"I'm sorry, I just came by to thank you for WRECKING MY LIFE!"

reply

[–] bee_in_wonderland 16 years ago

what sequel?whats it called

bryy is fee!
To believe in one's dreams is to spend all of one's life asleep.

reply

[–] thedarknessflame8 16 years ago

yeah but in the sequal they say that there dead

reply

[–] wootieMcTootie 16 years ago

whaaaaat i thought they were alive

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

They were. They are very much alive when this movie ends.

They are dead at the beginning of the sequel.* But the sequel has a different Arthur Lastrange, a different ship that he's on, and even a different Richard and Emmeline.

So OUR Richard and Emmeline survived, and some other Richard and Emmeline died. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

* Return to the Blue Lagoon (1991)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102782/

reply

[–] natilia_b 16 years ago

I think i love you xeno... we share the same thought
they are too beautiful to last

reply

[–] DudeB13 16 years ago

quick question since we're answering questions at the moment, were they related? cuz when my dad refernces to the movie he always notes how they're related, i don't think they are but i wasn't able to see the whole thing

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

The two questions which come up here most often are "did they die?" and "were they related?" Just look the board over a little, and you'll find multiple "cousins" threads.

I will state right here, though, that they were not brother and sister. Where anybody gets the idea that they were is beyond me, but somehow, some people get this notion in their heads.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

reply

[–] paleolith 14 years ago

I will state right here, though, that they were not brother and sister. Where anybody gets the idea that they were is beyond me, but somehow, some people get this notion in their heads.

You only have to miss a very few lines to get the wrong idea. In the beginning, they interact with Richard's father as though he were father to both, and only brief comments make it clear. Later there's the "are your parents in heaven", but if you already have the idea that they are sibs, that isn't likely to dispel it.

If I hadn't known in advance, I can see that I might have thought they were sibs. Or just friends. It isn't punched out in the first couple of minutes, and then is not explained afterward.

Edward

reply

[–] cjmg85 14 years ago

I just assume that Paddy didn't know if they were poison or not, but told them not to eat them just in case. I like to think that they were though so they are dead in the end. While them dying is so sad, them not going back home to their island is even sadder.

--------------------
C:\DOS
C:\DOS\RUN
RUN DOS RUN!

reply

[–] patbuddha 16 years ago

So OUR Richard and Emmeline survived, and some other Richard and Emmeline died. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

I figure there's some movies you just pretend like they never happened. There was a ten year gap between these two movies. It's not as though the first movie ended in some kind of cliffhanger where you absolutely have to see the second movie to get the rest of the story and tie up any loose ends. Between 1980 and 1990 we were pretty well content in our knowledge that The Blue Lagoon ends happily. For me that contentment lasted a lot longer, precisely up until tonight when I came to this board and learned of the sequel's plot.

Even still, the only reason, I figure they chose to kill off the two main characters from the first movie is because they couldn't get one or both of them to come back for the sequel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patbuddha

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but the reason they killed them off is because that's what the second book does.

The first book ends the same way as the first movie: they are sleeping but very much alive. The second book begin the same way as the second movie: with them both deader than dirt, and only the baby survives. The author changed his mind between books.

But there are enough differences between the first book and the first movie that I still say OUR Richard and Emmeline survived, the captain of the ship officially married them (they would consider it a do-over) on the way back to Boston or San F'risco or wherever, and, after a bit of a rough time adjusting to civilization (such as it was in those days), they lived a long and happy life together.

[this post has been deleted because it could no longer keep its anger in check]

reply

[–] patbuddha 16 years ago

Interesting. I was about to argue that the author might have written the sequel to correspond with issues related to the film, much like Winston Groom wrote Gump and Co. as a sequel to Forrest Gump the movie rather than his original novel and Michael Crichton wrote The Lost World as a sequel to Jurassic Park the movie rather than Jurassic Park the book. Except well -- silly me -- I didn't know that the original Blue Lagoon books were written between 1908 and 1925.

Here's my other argument then. Return to the Blue Lagoon is not entirely an adaptation of The Garden of God. The only resemblance the movie has with the book is that it's a love story between the son of the characters from the first story and another woman on the same island. That's pretty much where the similarities end. The women don't even share the same names. About the only thing Return kept was the fact that Richard and Emmeline are revealed to be dead at the beginning. It's possible that the screenwriters would have jettisoned the whole book if it suited their purposes.

The only missing piece in that analysis is whether Brooke Shields and Christopher Atkins were actually ever asked to be involved and turned it down. Or if the sequel producers always intended to follow that point of the original novel through.

But yeah I think we agree, but for different reasons. And besides if you bought and read the book in 1908, you would have gone 15 years before finding out that the author decided to kill them off.

http://www.youtube.com/user/patbuddha

reply

[–] critic-2 15 years ago

They just changed it in the sequel so that they could conveniently get rid of the two characters. It's the only time I've ever seen the ending of one movie changed in the sequel just for convenience.

I'm told they used to do that all the time in those old-time movie serials of the '30's and '40's, like "Flash Gordon". One episode had a cliffhanger ending making it look as if someone were going to die, then in the next episode, they would cheat a little and change (almost imperceptibly) what happened in the cliffhanger ending so that the character in danger would live.

reply

[–] linidaph 16 years ago

I don't think they die at the end. I think old man Paddy only lied and said the berries are poisonous to keep the little kids from eating unknown crap that could be poisonous. So when they ate the berries at the end, they thought it would kill them. And after being on the water for so long, they probably fell asleep due to exhaustion or heat stroke. The ending was supposed to be a happy ending with Richard's father finally finding the kids and rescuing them. Or so that is my interpretation.

I think the second movie, "Return to the Blue Lagoon" just wanted to kill off the original characters to create a new start with the same concept. Personally, I think the second movie sucked!

reply

[–] TwoCansMom 16 years ago

I agree with you linidaph, Paddy often told them lies to entertain them or help them survive. In the beginning, after the boat exploded and they were complaining of thirst on the lifeboat, he immediately had them listen for the sound of the sun hissing as it set in the water in the horizon.

I took it as an attempt on his part to distract them from their thirst.

reply

[–] joet7565 16 years ago

They ated the purple berries. They taste like burning.

reply

[–] kellie_jarman 16 years ago

The whole thing was a big glitch ending of the first/start of the second.

1. They are the same Richard and Emmeline (of course different actors to portray the bodies) in the boat - glitch is the boat is different and didn't have a canopy type thing in the first movie
2. They were very much alive at the end of the first movie - the glitch is that they were dead at the start of the second
3. The Boat Richard's father was on is different in the second movie - glitch
4. Lilli and her mother weren't on the boat at the end of the first movie - glitch

So even though it all runs together, there were just quite a few big glitches.

You're supposed to take it that Richard and Emmeline were dead when found and so Lilli's mother takes on Paddy who gets called Richard (I'm guessing after his father). Because of the illness on board they have to abandon ship and Paddy is returned to the island along with Lilli and her mother.

reply

[–] xenophile2002 16 years ago

Right. So the two stories happen in different universes. In one there's no canopy, in the other there is. In one, they ate enough berries to knock them out, in the other they ate five more berries, and it killed them. In one, the boat is of one type, in the other it is different. In one, Lili was not there, but in the other she was.

So what happened is that OUR Richard and Emmeline lived. The Richard and Emmeline in that other universe died.

_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ingde 14 years ago

I saw the second film first, and just now saw the first because I didn't want to see how the lead characters died, and it was really killing me beginning to care for these characters whom I knew would die. Therefor the ending was very pleasing, seeing that they survived and were found by Richards father. (And when he first saw them, bathing in the mud and just said, "No, it can't be them" Argh!)

So I established for my self that the second movie was just made up so that they could make a new movie, till someone said it really is based on a book...

Now my only hope is this, (and I'm not sure I'm going to check the for answer, as long as I'm ignorant I can believe what I want ;P )I can't remember that Richards father were on the boad at the second movie. I can't remember anyone grieving for finding his children, just a couple of days too late. Now, if anyone can remember him beeing there, the two storylines makes more sense and the deaths are more 'certain' (as certain it can be in a made up story :p ). BUT if he wasn't there there the two doesn't add up, and Richard and Emmeline and Paddy went back to the States with the father/uncle/grandfather and lived their lives, not in the city, but somewhere they could be happy.

So please tell me that the father wasn't on the boat, and I promise I won't watch the movie again to check... HAHA

reply

[–] xenophile2002 14 years ago

The ship in the second movie is different than the ship in the first movie. The father was on the ship in both, but he's a different guy in the second than in the first. Paddy looked different. And the biggest difference of all: in the first movie they survive, and in the second they do not.

Thus, the two stories take place in alternate universes. In one (The Blue Lagoon 1980) Richard and Emmeline live, but in the other (Return to the Blue Lagoon 1991) they die.

So the Richard and Emmeline from THIS movie did survive, and did return to San F'risco.

-
What If Rick James had Become the Hulk?
http://tinyurl.com/59hfwy

reply

[–] aamirabbas 16 years ago

the berries put a person to sleep, so thats why older Paddy warned them away from them...or he could have been wrong in thinking they were poisonous.

You can see that the sailor checks their pulse before saying "No sir they are just asleep", which makes it clear that they survive.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] catnip95 15 years ago

But if the berries didnt kill them, then what did?

There is not great genius without a touch of maddness

reply

[–] xenophile2002 15 years ago

In the first movie, nothing did. They didn't die. They were sleeping but very much alive whenThe Blue Lagoon ended.

However, in the second movie, it was the berries.

- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.

reply