MovieChat Forums > Rango (2011) Discussion > What was that big eye in the cave?

What was that big eye in the cave?


It certainly never seemed to be explained to me. It was that giant eye that opened up when they walked in front of it. (Reminded me of Sauron fron LotR.)

reply

[deleted]

I thought it was the snake.

reply

I thought so too, but the size is all wrong, isn't it?



Yes, you are hurting sheep by hoarding them.

reply

Not only is the size all wrong, but snakes can't close their eyes - they have no eyelids.

By the way, luvjd, is your signature meant to be a line from the South Park episode 'Insheeption'? If so, it's "herding", not "hurting". The shepherd says that he is a sheep herder, and the response is: "Yes, you are herding sheep by hoarding them."



When life gives you lemons, shut up and eat the damn lemons.

reply

it was just eye candy

reply

That was a "big one."

reply

A nice throwaway gag.

There. It's on the Internet. Thus it's official

reply

Nother storyline dropped, just another symptom of a very poor script. The writing ruined for me what might have been an excellent film.

Maybe some other country can remake it and give it some real oomph... :(

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

[deleted]

tallard, listen to onefilmlover because you apparently have no concept of what a story line is.

reply

Yes thank you for the Arts Lit class, I feel so much more enlightened now that your highness has set me straight.

***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**

reply

maybe a sand worm from Tremors?


I admire its purity. A survivor... unclouded by conscience, remorse, or delusions of morality - Ash

reply

Graboids don't have eyes




Pardon my French but Putain de merde

reply

AWESOME REFERENCE.


Also. I think it might have been a ref to Godzilla over LOTR. If you compare the two scenes anyway...

Hands like Houdini.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Actually, I have to say that your knowledge of screenwriting is very poor. I can think of hardly any movies, particularly nowadays that have only one storyline.

reply

All anger at the "troll" aside, the eye was just something mysterious for us to see. The fact that what the eye belonged to wasn't revealed can be good or bad, depending on how much mystique you like in your movies.

______________________________________
The question is, who wouldn't?

reply

I saw the 'Eye' as a little gag, almost like an inside joke.
But you're right, everyone reacts differently to ambiguity... I tend to enjoy it. It makes ya think lol.

reply

Let's see... an Eye of Maximum size. IMAX???

I thought it was great that I had more patience. Turns out... I just don't give a sh!t

reply

Someone said the ambiguity of this eye=a poor story line...
Umm the eye doesn't have anything to do with the actual story. The point of showing it was to have people speculate or imagine what it could have been. Apparently some people need everything blunt and obvious, without using any of their own imagination.
How am I funny?
>>>>>>>>TEAM JOKER<<<<<<<<

reply

That's what happens when you're raised stupid. You need everything spoonfed to you on a *beep* silver platter.

It's a big *beep* eye from a big *beep* animal in a big *beep* cave!

That's all it *beep* is! No *beep* mystery! No *beep* ambiguity! It's a big *beep* eye in a big *beep* cave in a great *beep* movie!

reply

You guys all sound ridiculous how you're bashing the guy who wanted clarification on the eye. Someone even brought out the "some people need everything spelled out and can't use their imagination" line.

You know what's not imaginative? Everything you lot have just said. It's pedestrian. Restrain your condescension plz.

reply

It was the snake's eye but enlarged a bit and stylized so that it looked like Sauron's.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=10331157

reply

[deleted]

How about a Desert Kraken?

reply

[deleted]

It reminded me of the eye in Duck Dodgers in the 24th and a Half Century.

reply

Certainly you don't put hours of rendering time into something meaningless? We come to expect that everything in animation has some relevance, be it an inside joke, obscure reference, visual awesomeness or at least plot/storyline foreshadowing etc. Personally I didn't get it; and no its not even remotely like the eye from LOTR (I checked). This movie has several somewhat obscure references, for example the reference at the beginning during the car accident was clearly a comedic reference to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" which is pretty high brow, there are zero kids that would get that. When you do stuff like that in animation you prime everyone to look for the hidden joke in everything. Thats what keeps the adults engaged. That is why there is such a disconnect with this thread topic. There just doesn't seem to be any purpose for that scene. Its not particularly stunning from a visual perspective, it doesn't have anything to do with the story (which is what I expected) and perhaps there was a reason for it at some point and the rest got left on the cutting room floor. Guess we'll never know.

reply

No, there can be many story lines in one movie. Pre-screens often show alternate endings that change the entire complexion of the story.

One of the main reasons actors go to advanced releases of the movies in which they acted is they don't know what story will finally hit the public and they don't know which of the scenes from their gazillion takes will actually make it to final release.

As such, there may be all kinds of scenes that were cut that changed the story, as well as few scenes that weren't cut that perhaps should have been (likely this "big eye" thing).

Having said that, once they "realize" they left this in, they might have said "what the heck, people will talk about it." That happens especially when the budget is used up and there's no more money left for paying editors.

Producer budgets change storylines all the time. It's well-documented that what was finally released as "Beverly Hills Cop" was quite different when Sylvester Stallone was signed to star and the character of "Jenny Summers" was the protagonist's love interest. Stallone's vision was too expensive for the producer's budget, so they made a bunch of changes, brought in Eddie Murphy and turned the love interest into an old friend.

It is also well-documented that George Lucas, who created ILM by the way, did NOT know "Darth Vader was Luke's father" even after they'd begun shooting The Empire Strikes Back! See http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/book.html That's a huge story line change, wouldn't you agree?

So, perhaps you ought to pause before assessing someone's screen-writing knowledge.

------------------------------------------
I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

reply

[deleted]

Darth Vader becoming Luke's father at some point during shooting of The Empire Strikes Back, years after Star Wars was released, is a MAJOR PLOT change.

I'm not sure how you can suggest otherwise, nor how you could miss this as a supreme example of more than one storyline.

They shot the scene as "No Luke, Obi-wan was your father." Later, Lucas changed the voiceover without the knowledge of the actors, who all acted their roles on the assumption that Luke's father was Obi-wan.

There are also countless discussions on-line about how "test previewers" liked or disliked certain viewings, indicating very clearly that the entire complexion of a story can have options which the director will eventually finalize.

Thus, I'll respectfully disagree with your "FAIL" assessment.


------------------------------------------
I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd.

reply

I think what the previous poster was pointing out is the fact that, right now, of course you can say that the DECISION to make Darth be Luke's father during the shooting changed the direction and tone of the whole series, but before you pointed out that piece of trivia, any viewer will still see the one plot that includes Darth Vader as Luke's father - hence, nothing was dropped within the final, conclusive narrative and the example does not apply to given argument about the eye in the cave (which was not a dropped storyline, since a story never begun to develop regarding the eye).

Now, of course there are multiple storylines in a movie, including Rango: Rango's love story, the water ordeal, Rango's identity and the spirit of the west etc.
BUT, a damn eye in a damn cave could be, and most likely just is, an eye in a cave, put there for a quick reference or exemplification of the magnitude of their quest and/or the ill-suited nature of the 'wild bunch' to be dealing with such a major issue (nescient to the fact a huge damn beast is right beside them).


Blabber aside, plot changes can take place in production and post-production, not on the silver screen itself. Unless your drop acid before going to the cinema. Which you probably shouldn't.

reply

You're only half right on this one. While in the scene they shot with prowse the line he was given was "You don't know the truth Obi Wan killed your father, Lucas had indeed decided to make Vader Luke's father by that point as he told Mark Hamil that Vader was his father shortly before shooting the scene. The reason he didn't tell anyone else was to prevent leaks. So the decision to make Vader Luke's Father was indeed made at least before the shooting of that scene.

That is not dead which can eternal lie and with strange aeons even death may die

reply