In the first one Richard, Emmeline and the baby were ONLY alseep when the guy who was like their adopted father or something found them in the ocean. In this movie stranges find them and they are dead except for Paddy who is now Richard. What the hell....
share[deleted]
This movie screwed up the story completely.
"I'm going to San Frisco without you!" - Richard in The Blue Lagoon
I agree, this movie was retarded...
shareit fallows the boks pretty well. in the book the captain finds the dingy and the childrens uncle asks if they are alive and he says they are sleeping. then they stop breathing and he says no, they are dead. they died from eating those berries and the baby was drugged from drinking his mothers milk after she ate the berries.
() ()
( . .)
c('')('')"Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam, sunbeams are never made like me."
I always thought that Richard & Em might've not died , or that their final fate was left open to interpretation by the reader or movie fan. I felt that there was a small chance they survived the food poison and were taken care off medically when they were taken on-board that boat/ship. However, if one is to accept the Sequel's storyline, or make it cannon, then you'd have to accept the fact that they did die from eating those poison berries, and the baby (Paddy) somehow survived. Perhaps, due to the fact Paddy only ingested a few berries and not as much (or large doses) as his parents did.
REzuleta
In the ending of the first movie, they were sleeping. But the writer changed his mind between books and wrote that they were dead in the sequel. So they just followed the book in this movie. They should have died in the first one to, that's an ending I like more. I hate the fact that Hollywood always brings the dead back alive just in the ending.
khou van je voor altijd, cutiepie <3
As for the fact that Paddy was now named Richard, I always figured that was because Paddy's first word was actually Richard in the first movie. I just assumed that he went around saying 'Richard, Richard' when the people found them and he was named Richard by them... Or does that sound stupid ;)
sharei agree with re zuleta, i thought they might have been saved in time by the ship coming by, i kind of felt like watching the sequal after seeing the original, but if they didn't survive the sequal doesn't sound as interesting, and someone around here said that after about 15 minutes, the sequal is like a remake.
in the neighborhood dusk,
in a reality where everything's turned to rust,
on the window pane, everything dissappeared in the air,
fog in my eye, what happened to all life,
feels like years, since i felt sunshine near,
nothing no longer come through, in this dark blue.
That's all why it seems to make more sense to think this movie is more of a remake than a sequel, because so much of it doesn't make sense. Let's say Richard and Emmeline did die in the first movie while their young son Paddy survived. Does it make sense to imply that after discovering they were dead after all, that Richard's father and his ship crew would just abandon them and the baby there in the rowboat, leaving the little boy there to die alone? It seems more logical to think the father and crew would have buried the couple at sea and taken the baby with them. The only other possibility I can think of is if the father's ship ended up shipwrecked after the three were rescued and Richard, Emmeline, and Paddy were the only survivors, but Richard and Emmeline later died while the three were out to sea once again and that's where this movie picks up, with the rescue of little Paddy, who became Richard.
share No, they were dead. The man says "They're asleep" as sort of a poetic end. They ate the poison berries. Strange thing is, the child was dead, too, but in the sequel, he was miraculously still alive. (If the parents knew that the baby was going to survive, they might not have eaten the berries with him!)
But if all three were dead or even just Richard and Emmeline, surely Richard's father and his crew would not have just left them there in the rowboat, so any way you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Plus, what guarantees the berries were ever poisonous? Could the adult Paddy have actually been mistaken about the "never wake up" berries? Or is possible that they didn't ingest enough to actually kill them? I believe in the book the berries were poisoned and the three were all dead when they were found, but movies often deviate from books even in their endings. So maybe we weren't really intended to know if they were really dead or just sleeping. I still stand by one of three theories. 1.) "Return" is a remake, not a sequel, 2.) The three survived the berries and were rescued but somehow the parents died later leaving the baby alone, or, 3.) It's all just an inconsistency with no reasonable explanation.
shareYeah, it doesn't add up. Huge plot hole.
Previously known as iVrd0/iVanV/Johnny_Boy/horror_zoneshare
I agree that it is most likely berries were not poisonous after all. If they had been, all three characters would have likely suffered other very obvious symptoms before death, such as diarrhoea or vomitting.
As we see no evidence of this on-screen, I think it is more likely that Richard and Emmeline ultimately died of sun/heat-stroke and/or dehydration. Why did Paddy survive? Probably just good luck that the ship found them when they did.