MovieChat Forums > The Secret of NIMH (1982) Discussion > Can we talk about the ending?

Can we talk about the ending?

posted 16 years ago by lvd_orders
12 replies | jump to latest

Boiled down premise for those who don't want to read: Do you think the ending could be better? How? Why? What would you do with 15 extra minutes of NIMH running time?

Those with longer attention spans may read on...

Curious on peoples' thoughts on the ending. As a child, when I first saw the film I was pretty disappointed at how the film differed from the book, but this isn't a constructive view. The film is attempting something different and instead of saying 'the magic just doesn't work', I'd rather consider why, or even if there is another problem.

Personally (and I've expressed the view elsewhere), I think the film suffers most due to its shortness. By taking a different road than the book, there's now a whole new set of things to work out (for instance, why does Jenner actually want the stone?, what is the history of the stone?, how did Jonathan come to have it, etc.) Instead of resolving any of these issues however, the film leaves even more unanswered questions than the book (which leaves a LOT of unanswered questions).

I keep thinking that given enough time/money and lifting the limitations of running length, Bluth would have gone for a somewhat different ending or at least done more to flesh out the vision he was going for. I'm not saying LoTR length, but even an extra 15 minutes to show us more of the rats, fill out some character development and make sense of that amulet! It really might have been enough to make this into a very different film.

I don't know what that extra 15 minutes would be though, so perhaps other posters can suggest.

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

Personally the only thing valuable that I think the amulet even adds to the film is the visually striking image of Mrs. Brisby holding it up in the air. Still, I thought it was a cheap way for her to save her children--it's not that believable. It's too... surreal. I say that with the realization that there are a lot of surreal devices in this film (Nicodemus' magic mirror, for instance), but an amulet that has the power to do anything as long as there's enough love in your heart (blah blah blah) is REALLY pushing it. Otherwise, an excellent film.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] mrcab 14 years ago

Deus ex machina, right? That's the only thing that really bothered me about the movies version of the story. And like you said, the visuals are so striking, is kind of makes up for it.

---

---
http://tinyurl.com/Last-Airbender-review

[–] Metal-Sab3 13 years ago

@mrccab
"From wikipedia: "god out of the machine"; plural: dei ex machina) is a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem is suddenly and abruptly solved with the contrived and unexpected intervention of some new event, character, ability, or object."

The use of amulet is not an instance of "Deus Ex Machina" because it's introduced beforehand (way beforehand) and explained by Nicodemus, when he tells Mrs. Brigsby that it holds great power when the user contains great courage of the heart. He also explained that Johnathan meant it for her as a gift. With this you can assume that Nicodemus or Jonathan probably made it, or both. It dosen't need to be explicitly stated because it's fairly obvious, the rats (more specifically Nicodemus) are the only ones with "magical" stuff (Nic's Mirror, The magic ink, lightning rod), it's assumed they made everything else. Why do a few people draw a blank when it comes to the amulet?

The movie explained how the amulet works, with the conversation and the engraved message on the back, it was subtle and didn't beat you over the head with boring explanations of fictional artifcats. Perhaps too subtle because people who haven't recently seen the film tend to forget.

Also, @ IceboxMovies

The power to do anything =/= the power to lift a brick out of the mud, come on man lol. The amulet clearly can't do anything, and it isn't used as such in the film.

[–] mrcab 13 years ago

I see what you're saying, and yes, I do remember this, but even though it's explained, about the "power", the actions are still quite inexplicable. Very similar to Superman pulling off his 'S' in Superman II(1980) and trowing it at one of the baddies to stop them: we know his suit possesses otherworldly powers... but come on, pulling off your 'S' like saran wrap to throw ant the bad guys?

---

---

[–] Metal-Sab3 13 years ago

I agree with your point on Superman II, that was some BS. I just don't have a problem with the magic amulet having the power to lift a brick out of the mud. Seems a lot more reasonable, to me.

I have a theory that a lot of people who get upset with the magical or supernatural elements to the movie are mostly big fans of the book that would have been upset with any change. But I really enjoyed the fantastical elements, I think it adds to the whimsical nature of the adventure, and they commit to it.

But regardless of weather someone enjoys fantasy elements or not, to say they're half assed or just thrown in at the end in Secret of NIMH is just not the case.

I think it adds to the plot, gives the rat's society a very unique vibe and specifically Nicodemus and also provides with that great eye candy scene at the end with the when mrs. brigsby lifts the brick out of the mud.

I was giving my friend *beep* since he's a big star wars fan, about how that scene is way cooler than when yoda lifts the x wing out of the mud lol.

[–] mrcab 13 years ago

To be honest, the book is not all that great. But that's my opinion. I think I would have enjoyed the magical elements of the movie more if there was a bit more foreshadowing to them. What bugs me now, and what I didn't quite understand as a child, is that it could have been very easy to go back and slip in a mention of this amulet being magical, but it is a tad lazy not to have placed more emphasis on it. E.G.: have it do something questionably magical, and make the audience wonder; beyond the drop in the bucket we got.

Also I would have liked to have seen a much more science-based rat society that expanded more on what the book gave us. But then again, I read the book as an adult and not in the 1980s when the film was release so my idea there would work better in today's time period.

Not to argue, but the Yoda scene had far more meaning behind it than the NIMH one; which I'd have to argue is cold and empty, and only seems to be built off the viewers' wants. They want that brick to move and anything will suffice.

---

---

[–] Metal-Sab3 13 years ago

"I think I would have enjoyed the magical elements of the movie more if there was a bit more foreshadowing to them. What bugs me now, and what I didn't quite understand as a child,"

Again I mean I just watched the movie recently so I guess people haven't seen it in a while. But the very first scene in the movie, before anything else, is Nicodemus writing in his book with magic glowing ink, can't foreshadow much harder than that. Without foregoing subtlety/ treating the audience like they're dumb.

And they say the amulet has great power, again Nicodemus says that flat out. Without ruining the pace with some belabored explanation about the workings of fictitious items. Making it do something beforehand seems moot, because it only works when the amulet finds true courage of the heart (again explained by Nicodemus).

Also they do emphasize the importance of the amulet without this: When Nicodemus says "...so far the amulet has remained safely hidden but if he (Jenner) finds it, heaven help us!" Again they don't spend 20 minutes on it so as not to ruin the pace, but the set up is clearly there.

The movie tells you the amulet has great power, lets you know how it works, and gives you insight into how important it is by mentioning how tragic it'd be if the bad guy (Jenner) got it. That was more than enough set up for me.

Also yeah, Im not the guy to have a constructive Star Wars conversation with, I don't much care for most things Star Wars. Suffice it to say I empathized with Mrs. Brigsby's struggle to save her children moreso than Luke's struggle to be boring, whiney and unlikable. So the payoff in NIMH meant more to me. But, obviously, that matter is entirely of opinion.

[–] mrcab 14 years ago

OP,
Yeah, they really should have eplaind the amulet more. It obviously has some sort of power, and we only assume that is the reason that Jenner wanted it. But yeah, more explaining needed.

If they did have an extra 15 minutes, I think they should have dumped the amulet and stuck closer to the book. I did like how they squeezed Jeremy in more, and the fact that Brisby/Frisby escaped from the cadge without Justin's help. Her heroics could have simply been her escape and warning the rats, and the finale could have been the rats escape, as in the book.

---

---
http://tinyurl.com/Last-Airbender-review

[–] steagle 14 years ago

Good points and well stated. The amulet of course is the great red herring in the movie. I always thought that Nicodemus had some sort of magical power - perhaps a strange reaction to the electricity running throughout his home - and that he embedded some of this power in the amulet, and held on to it until he found someone pure of heart to pass it on to before he died. I do believe if we were to ask Bluth what he thought of it, he would say he wanted to flesh out the rats more and dive into the history of the amulet, but couldn't bring himself to cut any other scenes and still deliver a movie at the right length (and by the right due date!)

[–] Edgewooddirk 14 years ago

Bear with me for a bit as I attempt an explanation. Let me first state that I've not read the book so this is purely based on the film. Aside from the brief moments with Nicodemus or the rats stealing a wire from the farmer, the film follows Mrs. Brisby exclusively. There are also a couple moments where she makes a late entrance into the scene. In those scenes, it could be reasoned that she, like the audience, is making efforts to comprehend everything portrayed in the scene as she approaches. You may argue that the scene with the rats attempting to move the block is clearly free of Mrs. Brisby for a considerable amount of time. In this instance, the narrative has to break from the protagonist for the subsequent moments to make any sense at all. For a clearer example of my thought, consider the moment where Brisby and Ages evesdrop upon the rat senate meeting. She and the audience can discern the efforts made by Jenner to sway his colleagues, though not in their entirety as we are still behind a closed door. Judging from this example, I would say that the film places the audience and Mrs. Brisby on equivalent or very similar levels of understanding and knowledge with regards to the complexities of the rat world. Now for your question about the stone. Clearly Mrs. Brisby is a courageous field mouse thrust into the world of uncertain politics, deceit, and murder. Given her situation, a certain amount of acceptance without understanding would be required for her to achieve her own ends. She does not question the apparent gift from her husband, and we, being on similar levels of understanding, will never know the gift's nature. I think Nicodemus knows more than he told her, but he told her enough for her to engage the magic to solve her problem. In conclusion, I think the frustrations taken from the film are partly due to the narrative structure and epistomological equality we share with Mrs. Brisby. On the other hand, what better way could there be for viewers to identify with a mouse struggling to adapt to her ever-expanding world than to place the viewers there with her?

[–] richie_patrese 11 years ago

Yeah, I thought the amulet raised up was a pretty poor way to end the film - I'm not surprised the book is different (read it about 25 years ago and can't remember that much!)

[–] CathodeRayTubesRock 9 years ago

My very large problem with the ending is that the entire story is not about 'magic' but about science and science fiction. I love fantasy films. And I love science fiction films. But the amulet is pure deus ex machina crappola.

Let me elaborate on my point. The story is about the rats and mice becoming intelligent. That's the premise. We see them learn to read, and from there they learn the secrets of electricity, of medicine, and mechanical engineering. They plan and have meetings.
There is no hint of magic. Then, voila, the magical amulet saves the day. WTF!?!?

Don't get me wrong. I like the movie. I enjoy the movie and have watched it with my children. But that ending greatly lessens the movie for me. If I could just skip that part I certainly would.

Sig, you want a sig, here's a SIG-sauer!