MovieChat Forums > The Neverending Story (1984) Discussion > Why didn’t they just make this a two-par...

Why didn’t they just make this a two-part movie?

posted 2 years ago by StrongRex (1319)
6 replies | jump to latest

Okay, so I’m reading the book for the first time and I’m already past what I’ve already seen in the Neverending Story movie. So far it’s very interesting and very well-written, and totally could have made for a great film on its own.

So why did they not only stop halfway through the book, but in making the sequels they gave us the monstrosities known as Neverending Story 2 & 3? The second half of the book is much stronger than Neverending Story 2, and there was no reason for 3 to exist at all. Would have been much better if they split this huge project in half and made 2 separate 2-part movies, keep the same cast and everything. Probably would have made serious money that way too.

[–] Boromir (10005) 2 years ago

Disagree. Neverending story isn't a monumental or epic book, it's a short and magical book that lost his magic if you split it to half. These kind of stories need closure and not "to be continued". Imagine Princess Bride in two half, it will be ruining the movie completely.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

You obviously haven’t read it.

[–] Boromir (10005) 2 years ago

I read the book and it is better as one movie.

[–] StrongRex (1319) 2 years ago

If it was one movie that included the entire book, yes.

But you can’t read the second half of the book and not wonder what could’ve been if they would’ve done it right. The second half’s events were just begging to be put to screen. If you were making this movie and only gonna cut it off halfway, why not make a second part?

Also, they didn’t stop at one movie. They made Neverending Story 2 & 3, both of which were atrocities. So your statement doesn’t hold water.

[–] Boromir (10005) 2 years ago

I am going to watch Neverending Story 2 this week (I will glad to hear your opinion after that) but full aware they used part of the first book in the second movie. It not uncommon to remove parts from the original book (eg Tom Bombadil) but from what I understand, they used elements from the original book but it's completely different storyline. So here I tend to agree with you, they made a mistake by not included the entire book in one movie.

I think the difference lies in the storyline itself, for example, in the Hobbit trilogy (that I didn't watch and don't going to) they 'force' you to watch the next movie because the hobbit journey still continue. Here, although it's shame they remove such amazing parts from the book, we get a some kind of closure - Fantastica saved and we get hints that the hero changing from a shy and childless guy to a braver and more mature one.

[–] sslssg (34211) 2 years ago

It's been about 30 years since I've read the book, but I remember wondering why they didn't keep going with the story. But I think it's just because it was the 80s, and they didn't do two part movies back then. From what I remember part 2 did finish the story, but it was years later with different actors.