It's because the first film adapted only the first half of the book and the producers decided to take on the second half
-
-
fyfytj — 10 years ago(February 14, 2016 05:54 PM)
This movie had the same job as the first movie, which was to take one half of the book and adapt it (and even had a higher budget to do so, according to Wikipedia). I do give the sequel credit for having the daunting task of trying to fill the shoes of the classic original movie, but as I said before, pointless changes from the first movie and the book, as well as a cheaper look to the sets and characters compared to the first movie - despite the higher budget - make NeverEnding Story II lack a certain "unity" with the first movie, making it feel so different that it just doesn't work as a continuation of the story, to me anyway.
I must also give credit to this movie though for not being
nearly
as bad as the NeverEnding Story III. Otherwise, it's not underrated to me but is instead rightfully obscure. -
pferreira86 — 10 years ago(February 16, 2016 01:12 PM)
Yeah the effects did look a little cheaper although maybe they were trying to make it look like the first movie? I mean they got the same Rockbiter and Falcor puppets. They did make some kind of effort even though six years had pastunlike number 3
I remember when I first saw it the whole movie did feel like a change but even as a kid I was aware of the passage of time and that new actors would be brought in so I accepted it pretty quickly. I just took it as Bastian ages a new actor could play him. I've mentioned elsewhere that the biggest issue with the sequel is also what makes it a good film which is its focus on character at the expense of adventure. Normally films get criticised for all style and no substance but with The Next Chapter it was the other way around. -
fyfytj — 10 years ago(February 18, 2016 05:46 PM)
I don't know, if they wanted to match the look and feel of the first movie they could have reused or mimicked some of the more memorable sets from the first movie like the Ivory Tower and the bookshop and gotten some actors resembling the original actors (even if a little older to show the passage of time), as well as introducing the newer sets and characters from the second half of the book.
The visual difference between these two movies reminds me of the difference between the 1939
Wizard of Oz
and the sequel
Return to Oz
, with the originals having such classic imagery that you can't help but compare all sequels to it. Neverending story II and Return to Oz both have visuals and tones that are weirder and darker than their predecessors and both lose a lot of that magical, "fantastical" feel in the process.
I do think this movie has a style of its own, I just happen to prefer the style of the original. -
pferreira86 — 10 years ago(February 23, 2016 01:56 PM)
I really don't understand why Jim Henson Creature Workshop made no effort to recreate the puppets or costumes in the third movie. Their work on that movie was terrible. What went wrong? I mean normally the Workshop hardly does anything wrong.
-
fyfytj — 10 years ago(March 02, 2016 10:21 PM)
Apparently the third movie had the smallest budget of the trilogy, but you're right. Other movies have pulled off amazing special effects and puppetry with even less to with. They just weren't even trying with the third movie.
-
pferreira86 — 10 years ago(March 08, 2016 12:43 PM)
Now you say that and I thought that to begin with however the first two movies mainly took place in Fantasia while the third movie took place mainly in the real world. With the third movie they essentially substituted the budget that would have been used for the Fantasia scenes on all the scenes filmed in Canada. And there were a lot of locations seen in the third movie whereas most of the first two films were shot in a studio. So I have a hunch that Henson Creature Workshop had the same budget as on the previous movies.
-
fyfytj — 10 years ago(March 15, 2016 10:29 PM)
So I have a hunch that Henson Creature Workshop had the same budget as on the previous movies.
If this is the case, then they really dropped the ball in their designs for Falcor and the Rock Biter. The Rock Biter, which looked like a mountain in the first movie, might be the size of a small boulder here, and Falcor ugh he went from a wise, dignified creature into an idiot Patrick Star-like sidekick character (in his character and in his voice).