The beginning suggests a sequel, but some people are saying it's a remake of the 1980 version. So does any know for sure?
sharesequel. it shows the parents from the first one dead and the baby being adopted by a young mother on the ship that finds their bodies.
I may be schizophrenic, but at least I have each other, and when I am alone I am together.
im thinking its a sequel because in the plot it says that emiline {the girl} dies from the berries so im thinking its the sequel!! have you ever seen this movie!!!????
so hope that helps
love ya
Breana
It's technically a sequel, but the plot line is basically the same. If not for the first 15 minutes of the movie, I'd say it's a remake.
shareso i guess it's a sequal.. and why would a remake be titled "return"?. yeah, about that, how the first 15 minutes are diffrent but then it's like a remake. that's kind of like "hitcher 2" or something, anyway, that sounds commonly. cases like that. speaking or remakes, what about the two movies from litterary almost a hundred years ago with the same title? i guess the sequal to the first story only has been filmed once. (this one).
i just threw a line,
that hit you bad somehow,
i think i'm gonna lay my head on cotton a while,
the future i've fantisised about,
was alredy on the table now,
gonna lay my head on cotton a while,
after i thought i had gotten through for this time,
i thought a shot rang out, in the daylight,
it was just a sudden confusion in my mind,
lay my head on cotton a while.
What I don't understand, though, is that, in the first movie, Richard and Emmeline don't die, they were rescued in the end. Richard's father and his ship crew find them in the rowboat at sea with their son and the three of them are laying in the rowboat together with their eyes closed. Richard's father asks "Are they dead?" to which his crew member replies, "No sir, they're asleep.", so it's implied all three of them lived. Even if Richard and Emmeline did turn out to be dead after all, they wouldn't have just been left at sea in the rowboat with the baby. Richard's father and his crew would have given them a burial at sea and taken baby Paddy along with them, not just abandoned them, so I don't see how this movie can be a sequel to the first because it really doesn't follow the storyline from where the original left off. Unless, maybe there was another shipwreck that was never explained after the rescue with the father's ship and Emmeline, Richard and Paddy were the only survivors. Then Emmeline and Richard later died in the rowboat after escaping the second shipwreck, leaving the baby alone, and that's where this movie picks up. It would be nice if it had been explained.
shareIt may be like the Incredible Hulk Movie, it was kind of a reboot/sequel to Hulk.
A man can change his stars
Another thing that makes me question the sequel vs. remake debate is the very beginning of "Return to the Blue Lagoon". A monologue comes on the screen reading
The South Pacific Ocean 1897
"Fifteen years before our story begins, two children were shipwrecked on an uncharted island. The little boy and girl grew up alone in this lost paradise. As man and woman, they discovered a pure and natural love. In time, a child was born. But in a tragic accident, they were driven out to sea away from their island. Drifting for days, they believed that their lives and the life of their baby were at an end. Then a passing vessel drew near....'
This would insinuate, to me, that "Return" is not picking up where the first story left off, but is telling a whole new story that is nearly identical.
actually, it could pick up at the end of the other one, the titles couldn't say llike "em and richard were two kids who lived together in an island, fell in love, had a baby and then, in a terrible accident, they were driven away from the island and found by a ship where richard's that was..."
it's just a lil bit more dramatic, but it's referring to the story from the first movie, without giving all the details, u know?
But if that really was the case, I don't see why the monologue would clearly state the first story happened 15 years before the current story takes place, that's the part that doesn't fit.
share