The NeverEnding Story

[ShyViolet]

I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE this movie. It's a classic piece of 80's nostalgia and a great story to boot! When will they finally put it on DVD, with widescreen and features? It's on DVD now but pan-and-scan of course, the quality is absolutely TERRIBLE, and of course no extras.

The sequal was terrible, (eight years later??) and I haven't watched the cartoon but don't plan to.

[Ben]

Not having a dig, but I wonder why a lot of people spell sequel with an a?

I agree that the first NES was a fairly good film, though whether I would add it to my collection would be whether it had a good selection of bonuses, since it would be a borderline purchase.

I could never sit through it all in one go when I was a kid!

[Josh]

The sequal was terrible, (eight years later??) and I haven't watched the cartoon but don't plan to.

Don't forget The NeverEnding Story III (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110647/) and the 2001 television series Tales From the Neverending Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271308/).

To be honest, I probably shouldn't have brought either of those projects to your attention. Case in point: The NeverEnding Story III is currently #83 on the IMDB's 'bottom 100'.

[ShyViolet]

Don't forget The NeverEnding Story III (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110647/) and the 2001 television series Tales From the Neverending Story (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0271308/).

To be honest, I probably shouldn't have brought either of those projects to your attention. Case in point: The NeverEnding Story III is currently #83 on the IMDB's 'bottom 100'.

I think I might have seen brief clips of these, but they look like they're aimed towards the kiddie set more than anything else...(OK, the first movie was too, but at least it had some quality.)

I guess one of the things I really like about TNS is its somewhat dated 80s quality--its sheer exhuberance for fantasy that pre-dated any kind of CGI. This was the days of the Dark Crystal, after all...I guess the creatures look kind of fake by today's standards, but I think they have a lot of charm and a magical quality you really don't see anymore. Plus some actors just wore lots of makeup which I think looked really cool. (Love that synthesizer music, very retro!)

I think if Lord of the Rings was done back then, they most likely would have had either a puppet playing Gollum or a small actor with makeup, which might have been kind of interesting. And Frodo would probably have been played by a real Little Person instead of straight-out-of-Hollywood Elijah (who I think could have done a much better job, even though he didn't ruin the flicks.) I loved the actors who played Sam and Pippin (Merri was average) but it was so extremely obvious that they were the same size as the other actors....very fake, IMO. Peter Jackson said that he chose regular-sized actors rather than Little People because there is a greater range of acting to choose from, but oh come on. He chose Wood because he was a bankable star, or at least recognizable. Ditto for Sean Astin. He just didn't have the guts to cast a Little Person even though they've been in movies for years and years and done wonderful jobs (Didn't Jackson ever hear of Willow?? Simon Birch??) I mean, the whole point of Hobbits is that they ARE Little People, not quite like the rest of us. Jackson just wanted bankable stars for a Hollywood blockbuster. No guts at all.

I do like Lord of the Rings a lot (especially the Two Towers) but in some ways everything was TOO realistic and solemn--there needed to be a little more whimsy, I think. Some spark of MAGIC and FANTASY. (well, I guess if they'd done that they never would have won that Oscar, would they?) Some 80s fantasy films might be kind of lame and all, but they were fun. Films today like Troy, LOTR, etc, are all good but in some ways too solemn and sterile.

Not having a dig, but I wonder why a lot of people spell sequel with an a?

I'm not the greatest speller, my bad. What puzzles me is when people confuse your with you're, or it's with its. (I see that one everywhere, even on official documents.)

[Ben]

No, the point of the Hobbits is that they are perfectly in proportion... just miniature.

Not the same as using "little people".

[Sh00tingstar]

I mean, the whole point of Hobbits is that they ARE Little People, not quite like the rest of us. Jackson just wanted bankable stars for a Hollywood blockbuster. No guts at all.

eugh!
shows what you know.
Ben has it on the nose. Jackson always l;oved that when you read the books, you forgot that they were small people, (note: dwarfism is where body parts are stunted, they arent porpotionated) and that youn only realised they were small when u saw them in comparison to other characters or objects.

Jackson cast little people as scale doubles, he also cast tall people for the same reason.

Dont call jackson a sell out. He risked his career to make those movies and he did a damned fine job. If your gonna to berate someone, do some frikken research first, *gosh!* (said in a napolean dynamite voice)

[ShyViolet]

Ben has it on the nose. Jackson always l;oved that when you read the books, you forgot that they were small people, (note: dwarfism is where body parts are stunted, they arent porpotionated) and that youn only realised they were small when u saw them in comparison to other characters or objects

Well, you definetely have a point. I guess I just felt like writing something. Sorry to all you LOTR fans out there.

*gosh!* (said in a napolean dynamite voice)

Or "dang"!

[gaastra]

The neverending story remake bidding wars has begun!

https://www.cbr.com/neverending-story-r ... 1710939882

[Ben]

It goes on and on and on…