MovieChat Forums > The Princess Bride (1987) Discussion > Was that sick kid necessary?

Was that sick kid necessary?

posted 5 years ago by Heisenberg (6730)
19 replies | jump to latest

I have never been a fan of this movie.
Maybe because of the kid being told the whole tale. I cannot stand that kid, nor the framing device.

Was that part really necessary?
Look, I like Columbo and I get the idea to frame it as a fairy tale being told on a bed, but was that really needed to make it work?

And did it need to take such a big presence? They kept reminding us that it's a tale and that they are telling it etc. And they cast two celebrities to play such sidelined roles. Clearly it is a major focal point of this movie. Why? It's not like he magically gets cured by the tale, or he joins the fantasy like in Never Ending Story. I find it quite superfluous.

I prefer my fantasy BS straight up, I have no need to be reminded that it's BS, thanks.

[–] MrFilmJunkie (899) 4 years ago

it makes it more suitable for younger kids to watch. you have to give them little breaks every now and then and remind them that this is just fiction.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 4 years ago

I loved Fred savage

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

What? Why??? Who the hell does that???

In Harry Potter, do they do that? Or any other kid tageted media.
If anything, this is exactly the opposite: a tongue in cheeck device for ADULTS, intended to remind them not to take this tale too seriously cuz it's supposed to remind of, almost parody, those tales that only kids would like.
It's almost apologizing for the fantasy.
This movie has no balls.

[–] Ldlamb (639) 4 years ago

Clearly this movie isn’t for you....that’s fine.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

I agree but it could have been for me.
It has a great fantasy setting, in a time when fantasy was seen as irrelevant.
It has lots of charm.
Had it stuck with the tale and sported a less pronounced, less constant winking at the audience, it could have been great.
I think the kid constantly pulling us out is a big factor of this problem.
Ok so this is THE movie with a granpa telling a tale to his sick kid.

I don't like that movie, I like the fairy tale in it, I wish they had made a straight fantasy movie with that story instead.

[–] Kowalski (75537) 4 years ago

ALMOST PERFECT CLASSIC...FALK AND SAVAGE ARE WONDERFUL.

[–] rudeboymurray (3271) 4 years ago

From what I recall (it’s probably 30 years since I read it William Goldman’s novel begins without fictionalised version of himself presenting his childhood favourite book ‘The Princess Bride’ to his son, or something like that. I guess when he adapted his book into the movie, he wanted to keep that link with the real world so he created the grandfather/grandson characters for that reason.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Hold on a sec.....
maybe we're getting somewhere. Thanks rudeboymurray!
So you wanna tell me there's a book behind this?

I didn't know that. So is the book "The Princess Bride" just a straight story of the fantasy tale with Buttercup and Westley etc, or is there an old dude in it that looks like Columbo with that kid from that show introducing this fantasy tale?

Cuz if in the real book such framing device is not present, than I know this flick is fucked up!

[–] rudeboymurray (3271) 4 years ago

As I said above, there is a framing device of sorts. It's not the grandfather/grandson but 'Goldman' the author giving the book to his own son. I remember that the son tries to read it, doesn't like it and lies, saying that he loved it. His father has given it to him as a book that his own dad had read to him years before. But it turns out that the original father had left out lengthy passages at the beginning which the kid finds dull, and only read the straight fantasy bits. The general plot and characters of the 'story within a story' are pretty much the same as the film, I think.

But it's been a VERY long time!

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

So they have a framing device in the book too.
Bah, I wonder if it was as heavyhanded in the book too, or if the original is about the fairy tale with this narrator just as a...narrator, exactly, not giving much importance to the kid or the "real world".

Well I guess I don't really see the point in that device anyway, like I said in the OP if there's some connection to the tale with the framing world, like he gets better or whatever, than I would understand.
The way it is, I don't.

Anyway, thanks again for shedding some light on this for me.

[–] rudeboymurray (3271) 4 years ago

My pleasure!

To be honest I recall next to nothing about the novel, except that I bought it because as a teen I loved the film, and that I don't think the book impressed me much. In fact I'm not sure I ever finished it.

The film delighted me back in the day but it's not one I have any real interest in revisiting after so many years. I'm not sure how awkward the framing story was from memory, but I did find it hard to swallow Columbo and Kevin Arnold being related.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Ahahah, it must have looked like those goofy cartoon mashup with scooby doo guest starring in batman, or he man visiting the ghostbusters.

[–] rudeboymurray (3271) 4 years ago

HAHA yep, you nailed it...

[–] TandyMan (11097) 4 years ago

It's right out of the book. They use different font and even ink color for the bits that are out of the story. It's actually wonderful. But the framing device, the idea of a story within a story and the annotation concept, that's right in the novel.

I do sometimes wish there was an alternate edit that left out the Fred Savage and Columbo stuff, though I do find it charming.

[–] Alerra (244) 4 years ago

No, it's pretty obvious in the book, too. Goldman doesn't actually get into the story of Wesley and Buttercup until about 50 pages in, because he spends so much time talking about his discovery of what Morgenstern actually wrote, and how he traveled to the country of Florin to do research. And Goldman interrupts the story, too, with stuff along the lines of *here, Humperdink goes into a lengthy sermon on the succession laws of Guilder, and I thought it was really boring, so I cut it*. I think someone even mentions that the asides are in a different font.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Allright, so it is even more stressed in the book.
I guess I missed its point in the film, anyway thanks for clarifying this.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6361) 4 years ago

Funniest part of the show

[–] redban (6203) 4 years ago

The frame-narrative helped give the main-story a layer of mystique. The grandfather said that his father read the story to him, and he then read the story to his son (i.e. the sick boy's father). Now, the grandfather was reading the story to the sick boy. So it's an old story, with unknown origins, that has been passed from generation to generation. Again, that detail was to pass a layer of mystique over the main story.

Also remember that at the start, the boy didn’t want to see the grandfather. At the end, he tells the grandfather to come back tomorrow. So the story had the power of bringing family together

In addition, the main story contains plot holes, ridiculous actions, magic, etc. The frame narrative provided an excuse -- it was just a story.

[–] Ripkens25 (2017) 4 years ago

I think the way it begins, with a Grandfather telling the story to his grandchild, is a huge part of the charm of this movie. For starters...as alluded to in the movie, nowadays kids are glued to TV and video games....and the idea of getting immersed in a fairytale by picking up an actual book seems all but forgotten. This movie reminds us of how magic can happen when we let ourselves get lost in fantasy like The Princess Bride.

For me, the occasional returns to present day (when they show the Grandpa reading the book to his grandson) don't take me out of the fantasy or the story at all. If anything, it reminds me I'm immersed in a storybook tall tale...and experiencing it through the eyes of a child--which is often the best way to experience such things.