MovieChat Forums > Le petit prince (2016) Discussion > [SPOILERS] Thoughts/arguments on the end...

[SPOILERS] Thoughts/arguments on the ending and the divisive third act

posted 9 years ago by jenregretterien
4 replies | jump to latest

In this movie we get to see the little prince as an adult, I've seen people say that the idea of it in itself is disrespectful to the original and a stupid idea, But... :

The little prince DOES get older in the book:
At one point he says

"I ought to have realized the tenderness underlying her silly pretensions. Flowers are so contradictory! But I was too young to know how to love her.”

So the little prince himself does at least imply that he does age like a normal person; we just don't see it happen within the book's timeline (which is a year for the little prince and a little more than a week with the aviator).
And I'm bringing this up also because even without the context of the film I've noticed that for some reason people seem to overlook this line and imply that he was always an eternal character or something...
Well, no; Because the book always had heavy themes of things not "staying gold", complete with the talk of sunsets and the geographer explaining the word "ephemeral" to our little prince. The whole "eternal child" thing is probably because this book is so famous, he's been immortalized as that character: So people naturally assume he'll always be that little prince, coupled with the fact that he's also a spooky space alien kid, but in canon it seems like he'd age just like earth people would.

Interestingly the movie both acknowledged this and then just ret-conned it completely because we saw him as an adult, and then somehow he's back to being a child again.

Just out of brain vomit again though- Does that mean the little prince would die like everyone else out of old age? Does he just age to seemingly adulthood (like the men he meets on other planets, the businessmen, the tippler, etc., because he never seems to meet elderly people or children like him) and not past that point? Does he never actually die? What happens when he dies ON HIS PLANET?

The story is kind of like a dream... You pull on one thread and it just unravels...

[–] jenregretterien 9 years ago

Also about the rose actually dying in this movie , people seem to forget this part of the book, or at least I only thought of it after the movie:

"Geographies," said the geographer, "are the books which, of all books, are most concerned with matters of consequence. They never become old-fashioned. It is very rarely that a mountain changes its position. It is very rarely that an ocean empties itself of its waters. We write of eternal things."
...
"But what does that mean--'ephemeral'?" repeated the little prince...
"It means, 'which is in danger of speedy disappearance.'"
"Is my flower in danger of speedy disappearance?"
"Certainly it is."
"My flower is ephemeral," the little prince said to himself, "and she has only four thorns to defend herself against the world. And I have left her on my planet, all alone!"

So the book is also acknowledging the rose would die eventually at some point, she is a rose after all.

It is a sad ending that the prince ends up losing the rose regardless of the sheep. But since this is the little girl's dream and she's read the book, she probably understands that regardless of the sheep the rose would've died eventually anyways, even if it wasn't for a while - a similar death to the idea of "old age" (of how the aviator was going to die).
It's the part where she understands that she'll always cherish his memory even when he is gone that was important- not going to the planet and making absolutely sure that the sheep has a muzzle so the rose doesn't die in the short run.

Maybe I'm looking WAYY into the decisions of the movie - but it's just interesting to try to strip down to what Mark Osborne's ideas were considering its production.

[–] jesslfortunato 9 years ago

I will be up front with the fact that I found this movie to be a disaster and a shame because it had so much potential as a tribute. It could have brought so many more people to the book/1974 musical which were wonderfully done.

"I ought to have realized the tenderness underlying her silly pretensions. Flowers are so contradictory! But I was too young to know how to love her.”

I've always found this to mean he has grown on an emotional level. That is basically the point of the book. A sheltered boy who has only known one thing (his planet) leaves on a journey and that journey makes him grow. He doesn't spend years with the Narrator, (as he is a coherent sentient decision making child when the story begins) so the only real growth he could have in the book is emotional. By cultivating a relationship with the Fox as well as the Narrator he begins to understand the value of his relationship with the rose. Before the rose he has 0 experience with any other beings.

I think the fact that the rose could die is clear in the book since she complains constantly of discomfort and of him leaving her alone. It was honestly just a buzzkill after that off the wall side quest we had to go on.

Why did the Little Prince look like a strung out heroin addict? What was with the weird factory that chained her to a desk? Why do so far into left field that the touching ending just felt awkward? I'd love to talk to the screenwriter and wonder what the heck he was thinking!

[–] stills-6 8 years ago

People are taking the original story way too literally. Trying to apply normative narratives to it strips it of its relevance and power. But the story doesn't unravel if you pull on one thread because there is no story.

The original book is a metaphor for how and why children become adults. Some things are gained, some things are lost. The movie tends to lean heavily in the direction of things being lost, because that's the current pablum that our market-oriented culture wants you to buy into. It's easier to sell things to believing children than it is to skeptical adults. But the book shows some of the real dangers of retaining your inner child, including the blind faith that a venomous snakebite will take you back home. It presents a more complex view of the world than most people give it credit for.

The movie is a straight-ahead emotionally manipulative wankfest, leaving out the controversial parts (like the drunk, for example) and instead attempting to provide a cautionary tale for parents who are confused about dealing with their own little brats and how they got that way. Though not a truly terrible story by itself, the "wrapper" narrative of the little girl was disappointingly flat in comparison to the original.

The instrument has yet to be invented that can measure my indifference to that remark.

[–] emvan 8 years ago

See my reply to the "It was great until ..." thread. I couldn't help writing my own ending.

Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.