MovieChat Forums > Blue Lagoon: The Awakening (2012) Discussion > Innocence from original missing in this ...

Innocence from original missing in this film

posted 12 years ago by RhondaStern
14 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who just couldn't get that same feeling that came with the original? Some of the best things about the original were how they grew up on the island and were essentially pretty innocent not knowing much about sex or any of that. When they had sex there wasn't a stigma attached that they were too young, you couldn't get a feeling of it being wrong because they were never in civilization and were just doing what their minds and bodies told them to do.

I think it should also be mentioned that in the original, they had a makeshift marriage ceremony. I know it wasn't legal or whatever, but it symbolized that they truly loved each other. I don't believe Dean and Emma truly love each other in this film. I feel like they just cared for each other because they were stuck together for a few months and had some fun getting it on with each other since there wasn't much else to do. Am I the only one who feels this way?

It also kind f felt wrong that while their parents were out looking for them, they were having sex all day. It reminded me that they were still children. Dont get me wrong, i understand teens still have sex. But the amount of sex they were having seemed inappropriate, especially since they still had hope that they would be rescued. All that unprotected sense in real life could certainly lead to pregnancy. Imagine going home to tell that to mom, after all the stress she had already had from thinking her kid was dead.

I feel like the original characters in the Brook Shields version made love, didn't just have sex. And even though they were just kids too, it didn't feel as wrong as it did in this movie because they were more grown up in the sense that they didn't have any parents for a long time and had to take care of themselves. So they were like little adults with adult feelings, yet at the same time innocent as they were ignorant to the things they weren't exposed to. Thoughts?

[–] laurakamaras-882-900757 12 years ago

I think the problem is that,except for the fact the movies have the same title,and the same story line premise-teen boy and girl are stranded and fall in love on an island,that is where the similarities end.Knowing that this was modern day version,I really didn't start watching it expecting the same type of innocence you describe in the first one. Do I believe Emma and Dean truly fell in love with each other,yes,the ending scenes where they reconnect kind of show that. Was it the almost child like and innocent love that Richard and Emmeline had-of course not,as in this version we know the boy and girl had grown up in the civilized world,and been exposed to things that they weren't in the first movie.But someone mentioned on the IMDb boards for the 1980 Blue Lagoon,that even though you believed Richard and Emmeline loved each other,you never knew for sure if they were truly soul mates,or if the feelings came because no one else was around-this person commented that their love had never been tested,for example if they had gone back to society,with other men and women around,would their love for each other still be strong,or would they both realize that there were other options? :-)

[–] stlbeth 12 years ago

No I don't think it was wrong that they were having a lot of sex. Whatever gets them through the day. What else were they supposed to do? I think that after a week or two, you'd lose all hope of being found. And even if you still have hope, so what? They were what 16-17? AS a parent, I'd be fine if my teen found that comfort in what was (could have been?) a traumatic situation. Hell, if my husband was stranded on an island with another woman, I'd be fine with it.

Though I would have preferred an ending where they truly still felt bonded to each other after returning. And that she had become pregnant. If they're going to go with the teenagers behaving like bunnies storyline, then there really was no reason to avoid the teen pregnancy storyline.

[–] rlslawn 12 years ago

Stlbeth,I agree fully. I only wish my wife would be so understanding if I were stranded with Indiana. lol

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jnorgle 10 years ago

I wish I could be as noble/awesome as you. Despite not having a sense of time, I'd only accept my hypothetical husband putting himself inside another woman if it were 7+ years on the island. I hate that I feel that way but I can't help it. >:[

http://i61.tinypic.com/2v3j8gp.jpg
http://i62.tinypic.com/2yjufbk.jpg

[–] Falconeer 12 years ago

Why would people compare this junk to the original film? The original was a real, official motion picture, while this new disease is just some made for tv crap. Innocence? Please, the only reason this was made was to show young people in skimpy clothing having sex. Even mentioning this tripe in the same sentence as the original is just wrong..

"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vinsane 12 years ago

You have a VERY loose definition of incest there. In the 1980 film it's portrayed that the kids are cousins not siblings while the 1949 film promotional materials mention that they were no longer "like brother and sister" which at least puts the issue legitimately on the table. Not certain about the Return To version from the early 90s or the source novel but I think it hardly likely to be the case since it never gets mentioned.

For the record, cousin pairings have only become icky to recent American & Anglo-American cultures. To nearly all the rest of the world it is not only NOT incestuous but was once not even that remarkable. Look it up.

Actually, to me, the idea about the 1949 movie couple (which I have sadly never seen) being raised as IF they were siblings could be more of an icky thing than any cousin issue at all. It depends on if they were five months old when they met or fifteen years, it's a big difference. Also, some folks use phrases like "we were like brothers" to describe a guy they spent a year and a half with in Grade School. (Would you give him a kidney now?) The little girl you played with on the swings for one summer at age four was "like a sister" then you moved, grew up. Later you reunited and she became your wife. That is not icky, it's cute.

I'm just saying a lot of people use the term "like brother and sister" to describe any relationship that started in childhood and/or was pre-sexual or platonic if you prefer. Some unrelated children actually are raised together very much as if they were siblings. Then the icky factor becomes a legit issue if a romance blossoms IMO.

Edited to add: From skimming thru it, the Return To version does have the boy calling the girl's mother (presumably) Mom, but, they seemed to be fully aware that he was informally "adopted" due to their circumstances of isolation on the island. Perhaps "siblings of convenience" is the term? This puts the matter into that gray area with the 1949 version for now until I see that one. I still think the original novel and the films intended to view them as a primal Adam & Eve couple in Paradise losing figurative and literal innocence per the original poster and NOT as a thought exercise in sibling incest. This Lifetime Channel version is a whole other fish-fry just using the name.

Eeek!!! I'm getting dressed.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rlslawn 12 years ago

Yes the innocence is not there, but it is a totally different scenario and not intended to have the same growing up experience as the 1980 or 91 movies. But I don't agree they just had sex for lack of anything better to do. Certainly, any man with eyes and a beating heart would be physically attracted to her and want to have sex with her if stranded on an island. But they did not get off the dingy and just start going at it in the sand right away. In fact, they waited I think it was twelve days (look at the hash marks on the rock) before giving in to temptation. They went through an awful lot together before that point. That is one thing the writers did right. They started with them not always getting along, and let the attraction build slowly, with little hints here and there, where one would sneak a peak at the other. Eventually, they fell in love, or at least they came to care deeply for each other.

[–] freebird1987 9 years ago

The Brooke Shields version is not the original. The original version came out in 1923.

And I believe that Dean and Emma were supposed to be older than Christopher Atkins and Brooke Shields' characters from the 1980 version.

[–] Lord_Gyaldhart 9 years ago

It also kind f felt wrong that while their parents were out looking for them, they were having sex all day.

What were they supposed to do? Cry the whole time during more than 3 months?

It reminded me that they were still children. Dont get me wrong, i understand teens still have sex.

Teens are NOT children, I do not understand why people insist to put them in the same category, no wonder why the so called "pedophilia" has become a witch hunt, and 95% of people do not know how to use the term properly.

But the amount of sex they were having seemed inappropriate, especially since they still had hope that they would be rescued.

Well, since they didn't have HBO or Facebook...

The movie may lack the innocence from the original films, but I see that its fans certainly don't, in fact, they have an extra amount of naivety thinking that 2 adolescents wouldn't have sex as if they were rabbits if they were stranded on a deserted island for 3 months.

In fact, it is a pretty popular fantasy, being on a deserted island, uninterrupted and with a girl who looks like a freaking goddess, such as Indiana Evans in this film (for me, she was the only reason I watched and actually found some enjoyment in this movie). I imagine that girls find the guy extremely attractive for them as well.

All that unprotected sense in real life could certainly lead to pregnancy.

It is a pretty bad movie which exploits a sexual fantasy (successfully, since it makes the film alluring even if it sucks), it is silly to complain about such plotholes.

Imagine going home to tell that to mom, after all the stress she had already had from thinking her kid was dead.

If the girl didn't get pregnant (for whatever reason) I don't see how the mom would be upset about her daughter enjoying herself during her ordeal.

It is not as if it was her fault ending up in a deserted island, she might be pissed if she didn't get home early from a party because she was having sex with someone, but not because she was 3 months abandoned in the middle of nowhere.

The GREATEST ally and BEST friend of christianity throughout history is Satan

[–] pauladowell 9 years ago

I wished Brenton Thwaites was in a loin cloth like Chris Atkins was