Talk:Return to the Blue Lagoon/Archive 1

A family film?
I removed this movie from the family film category for a few reasons. First off, it is simply not a family friendly film. As noted in the article, it was promoted as a family film when it was released to home video, but it clearly is not. It's a film dealing with teen sexuality, including nudity and sexual content, albeit of a PG-13 level as opposed to the original Blue Lagoon's R-rating. This is also one of a handful of American films in which an underage actress was allowed to show nudity on screen (others include American Beauty and Blame It on Rio). I'm not a prude claiming to be offended by any of this, but I do disagree with classifying the movie as a family film. I'd be curious to see anyone offering a rationale as to why it is. The very fact it was PG-13 rated disqualifies it from being a family film because by definition a family film should be suitable for all family members, including those under the age of 13. 23skidoo 06:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The PG in PG-13 stands for parental guidance and with parental guidance the nudity and sexuality of this film is harmless, at least before the point in the story when the ship of "civilized" people arrives. I'd submit the R-rated original film is actually more family-friendly than this one, because the R-rated film does not feature jealousy, homicide, or attempted rape and this one does. The original Blue Lagoon's nudity and sex is as free of harmful antisocial contexts as can possibly be depicted. For the most part, these films are idealized fantasies of how children, separated from civilization and given basic practical and moral instruction, would grow up to love each other. Really, if kids or their parents can't handle this stuff, they must equate innocence with ignorance. Categorizing any film as "family film" is going to be difficult in a worldwide forum such as this. There are simple criteria for categories such as "science fiction", "crime film", and "western," but "family film" depends upon what different people think is good for a family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.195.56 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the article
I changed the trivia that stated Randall Kleiser directed this film, as this claim is completely absurd. Not one paragraph up in the article, a completely different director and producer is listed. IMDB Link lists someone other than Randall Kleiser as well. KyleGoetz 17:17, 8 January 2005 (UTC)

Incest
If you count adopted brothers and sisters as brothers and sisters the relationship is Incest at the very lest it would almost definitely feel like that for the 2 involved it they new better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.119.112 (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Nipples.
I removed the bit about being able to see Milla Jovovich's nipples on the VHS version but not the DVD version. This would be hard to verify, as one would have to own a VHS version and DVD version of the movie to verify this. Also, the statement does not add anything to the article, if anything it comes off as if a Pervert wrote the nipple bit. Why does it matter if you can see her nipples in one version of the movie but not another? Is it a big part of the plot,her nipples? Also I removed that this is a family Film. It most certainly is not, as it is PG-13 and is about teenagers having sex on a deserted island. Family films are most always rated G or PG.--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)--BeckiGreen (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)