The Gang of Five

The Land Before Time => 1988 Theatrical Release => Topic started by: babidikrakenguard on April 21, 2010, 08:26:03 PM

Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: babidikrakenguard on April 21, 2010, 08:26:03 PM
Too many topics on here and im not sure which one has that about the Original Ending. Please close when question is answered. Im sorry :(


Just curious, is it true about the ending of the Original movie? About Littlefoot and the others dieing and the Great Valley is actually heaven? :( Anything about that? :(
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: DarkHououmon on April 21, 2010, 08:42:24 PM
I believe this was mentioned in another topic. From what I recall, no it's not true. It's just some rumor. The original ending, I believe, was hardly any different than what we get in the final version.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Animeboye on April 21, 2010, 09:12:55 PM
I'm glad they didn't have the movie end with the gang dying. The first film's depressing enough already, would we really have needed for them to die? Not to mention that's pretty much spitting in their faces.

"So you struggled and toiled, nearly gave up all hope, learned to work together and all became best friends but in the end...you died. Have a happy afterlife!"
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Cancerian Tiger on April 21, 2010, 09:24:22 PM
No, don't believe any of that.  It is just a bad rumor.

I believe in the original ending, when the Gang shared the group hug, Littlefoot said, "Now we will be together forever." Or something along those lines.  I'm sure, if seen from a mortality viewpoint, this could be seen as implying death.  

Man, that'd be disturbing if that was the way the film ended.  I don't think I'd be a fan if that's how it ended :cry.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: babidikrakenguard on April 21, 2010, 09:51:54 PM
Okay. Yeah, i dont believe that to be the real ending either about Littlefoot and the others dying. Sure my favorite character from the movie was the T-Rex, but it's just heartbreaking thinking about Littlefoot and the others dying like that! :(
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Kor on April 21, 2010, 10:15:54 PM
I don't think that was the intended ending.  I think the intended ending was what we saw.  After all if that was the intended ending why was Littlefoot's mother seen as a cloud leading Littlefoot to that entrance then going off instead of meeting him physically.  
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Serris on April 22, 2010, 12:23:51 AM
This is a common rumor and I believe that there is no truth to it.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: WeirdRaptor on April 22, 2010, 01:09:56 AM
Alright, we need to shut this rumor down, now. No. Just no. Why would anyone ever end their children's film in such a way?
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Almaron on April 22, 2010, 03:25:36 AM
I think there was a discussion on Imdb where an animator who worked on Land Before Time, and several other Don Bluth films, said he didn't recall anything like this, so I think it's safe to say it's just an urban legend.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Pikkutassu on April 22, 2010, 08:28:02 AM
The original ending is pretty much what you have seen, but without the ghost scene.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: LBTFan13 on April 22, 2010, 08:59:19 AM
Like everybody said, this is nothing more than a rumor. However, many people believed that this was a possibility for an alternate ending, because the line where Littlefoot says, "Now we'll always be together" was cut out. To some people, this line indicated that they the Great Valley was like a safe heaven, implying that they had died and reached the Great Valley in heaven. This of course was absurd, because in that logic every single one of the gang's parents would have died as well, but there is no such hint of that happening.

So don't believe anything you hear about the gang dying. The ending in the movie is the truly intended ending.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Malte279 on April 22, 2010, 09:45:49 AM
It is perfectly clear that the way the movie is made the gang is NOT dying at the end. Nevertheless I think the rumor that plans to make such an ending were considered (and discarded) at the time seems quite credible to me.
Don Bluth is not too flimsy about the topic, with "All Dogs go to heaven" there was another movie for kids at the time which included the topic, everyone knows dinosaurs are extinct so there would have been some sense in such an end (unhappy as it may be), the description of the never ever seen Great Valley "some things you see with your eyes, others you see with your heart" does sound a lot like a description of heaven to me, and there still is the matter of Littlefoot's mother who dies but still maintains a relatively distinct contact with him. Don't forget the fact that Bluth was intended to make the movie a bit harsher than it is and that it was the intervention of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg that took some scary scenes (the direct references we have are about sharptooth scenes) from the movie. If we take all this into account I don't really understand why so many take the rumor as totally incredible.
Of course the way the movie is made it is clear that the gang does NOT die. But of all the rumors existing about LBT I consider the one that the option of a movie ending in which the characters died and passed on to the Great Valley as a kind of dinosaur heaven was considered a rather credible rumor.
If we ignore all the sequels and focus exclusively on the mood of the first movie with its dying world (rather than the Great Valley being but one of many places "just as nice") I think it would have been a sad but sensible and sentimental ending. I see why they would change such an ending (crying kids in the lobbies) but I don't see why there is such an extreme conviction that there couldn't be any basis whatsoever to the rumor.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Coyote_A on April 22, 2010, 11:07:27 AM
"Today's lesson is: no matter how hard you try, you're doomed anyway". No way. :blink:
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: DarkHououmon on April 22, 2010, 11:51:40 AM
Quote from: Malte279,Apr 22 2010 on  09:45 AM
Don Bluth is not too flimsy about the topic, with "All Dogs go to heaven" there was another movie for kids at the time which included the topic, everyone knows dinosaurs are extinct so there would have been some sense in such an end (unhappy as it may be), the description of the never ever seen Great Valley "some things you see with your eyes, others you see with your heart" does sound a lot like a description of heaven to me, and there still is the matter of Littlefoot's mother who dies but still maintains a relatively distinct contact with him. Don't forget the fact that Bluth was intended to make the movie a bit harsher than it is and that it was the intervention of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg that took some scary scenes (the direct references we have are about sharptooth scenes) from the movie. If we take all this into account I don't really understand why so many take the rumor as totally incredible.
While it is true in All Dogs Go To Heaven the main character does die, I don't think it's enough to make the rumor of the gang dying very credible. The problem is that All Dogs Go To Heaven is about, well, heaven, so death is much more integrated into the story. Charlie dies, goes to heaven, then comes back, then dies again. Land Before Time, on the other hand, is not about the afterlife, but instead finding a lush haven. In this sense, having the gang die would be a big slap in the face for this type of story, since it's about their struggles, hopes, and dreams of finding the valley and their family again. I don't think the gang dying would have been a credible ending simply because of the type of story told. Yes it would have been realistic, but even An American Tail, which is one of the most depressing movies I've seen by Don Bluth, ended on a happy note. I think All Dogs Go To Heaven is the only Don Bluth movie I can think of where the main character dies in the end. And there's only two character deaths; Charlie and Carface. Don Bluth did not kill off the entire main character cast (Ann-Marie and Itchy are still alive).
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: WeirdRaptor on April 22, 2010, 05:43:16 PM
Coyote A said it best. When you think about the rumored "original ending", the whole thing would have just been an excercise in hopeless nihilism, and that's just not Bluth.
The very notion that such a terrible ending would ever have been considered for a family film is ridiculous beyond reason. I don't mean that as an insult to any of the people asking. I direct that to the person or persons who started the rumor.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Malte279 on April 23, 2010, 06:05:00 AM
I still disagree about it being so utterly impossible as most seem to think. There are more movies (including family movies) in which one or all of the characters die in the end. If death is "prepared" as something like the Great Valley it can even be seen as a not too depressing an end (and they lived happily ever after... after they had died :p).
In Watership Down we also have Hazel die in the end (accompanying the black rabbit), in the Disney TV series Dinosaurs they all die in the last episode...
I think with the way the Great Valley is described, with the way that death is presented as nothing too final (Mum's still chatting and giving directions in a very direct manner), the awareness that dinosaurs are extinct, and the "endtime mood" of the opening in the original movie I still think that of all the rumors out there this one ranks among the more credible ones. Keep in mind that I am just pointing out the possibility that it may have been considered. I am not speaking of any "original ending" as anything that had ever been produced. There is NO indication whatsoever that any scene was ever produced in which the characters die or anything to that effect. All I say is that I consider it possible and even likely that such a scenario was considered, discussed, and ultimately discarded by the movie producers.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Ducky123 on July 08, 2013, 07:24:50 PM
BUMP!

Well, that's a very difficult but interesting question.

I bumped this since the discussion doesn't seem to be fully discussed and since there are many new members (including me) who may want to give theit two pence on that matter :yes
So what are your thoughts, guys? :)
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Petrie85 on July 08, 2013, 11:03:46 PM
I've been here  for two years and a month and never knew this topic existed. But I'm gonna say no but I did read some where that was the case but Don Bluth said those rumors where not true at all.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Malte279 on July 09, 2013, 02:49:01 AM
Where did you read that? Did really Don Bluth himself ever say that there had never ever been any such considerations?
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Mumbling on July 09, 2013, 03:39:20 AM
Since I heard this 'rumor' I've believed it to be their true intention. But it is not obvious in the movie, so they didn't actually work it out in the scenes.

I remember seeing a comic about this, but sadly enough I can't find it anywhere. I did find this amazing piece of work again :p

(http://th01.deviantart.net/fs25/200H/f/2011/145/0/7/07265cb0ba782c2dc47de810ae4d8eff-d19pvz1.jpg) (http://lbtfanclub.deviantart.com/art/Let-your-heart-guide-you-76790557)
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Ducky123 on July 09, 2013, 05:12:56 AM
I personally don't believe in this rumor... It sound too unrealistic to me and I doubt I would've liked the Land Before Time anyway.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Blais_13 on July 18, 2013, 12:53:48 PM
To me it sounds quiet possible to be something behind this.The movie was dark,and there are the things alredy mentioned in this topic,so this is at least an interesting interpretation of the ending if nothing is behind the rumor at all.I think the ending is happy anyway,becose they were in a better place,dead or alive.Of course we have the very solid proofs in the forms of sequels that the gang survived it.

Quote
too unrealistic
More unrealistic than talking dinosaurs,and straight standing t-rexes? :p
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Littlefoot3897 on July 20, 2013, 02:34:13 AM
Quote from: Blais_13,Jul 18 2013 on  11:53 AM
To me it sounds quiet possible to be something behind this.The movie was dark,and there are the things alredy mentioned in this topic,so this is at least an interesting interpretation of the ending if nothing is behind the rumor at all.I think the ending is happy anyway,becose they were in a better place,dead or alive.Of course we have the very solid proofs in the forms of sequels that the gang survived it.

Quote
too unrealistic
More unrealistic than talking dinosaurs,and straight standing t-rexes? :p
you sir dont know about the deleted scenes do you?

originally lbt was suppose to be like this

-finds rock that looks like long neck
-cera little foot
-gang split
-littlefoot cries and sees his mother
-mother shows him the great valley
-littlefoot decides to go back to look for his friends
-littlefoot saves friends
-sharptooth killed
-shows his friends the great valley


if this rumor was true, littlefoot died then and came back to get his friends?

Don Bluth also thought this rumor was nuts and was never intending that

Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Blais_13 on July 21, 2013, 08:37:44 AM
Aren't they first actually decline other endings before making those scenes?:p

Anyway,it doesn't matters,becose if what you say is true about Bluth,then it's false.So what?The movie ended with them alive?We alredy knew that in the first place.Somebody just came up with this idea then,but I still find it interesting.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Malte279 on July 21, 2013, 02:44:16 PM
Quote
Don Bluth also thought this rumor was nuts and was never intending that
Did he? When and where did he write so?
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Petrie85 on July 22, 2013, 10:45:49 AM
Yeah I'd like to know this information as well.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Almaron on August 09, 2013, 06:37:23 PM
Don Bluth also thought this rumor was nuts and was never intending that
Quote

I was sure I'd read that somewhere too, but I wasn't able to confirm this when I tried to search for it online.

However, I do remember reading a bunch of threads on the IMDB message boards for the LBT movies, and one user was (or claimed to have been) a former animator at Sullivan Bluth Studios, and talked a fair deal about events during the production of one or two of their movies (in one thread he talked about the discovery of Judith Barsi's murder). He said in one thread that the "original ending" rumor wasn't true, and noted if it had ever existed, he'd never heard Don Bluth mention it (or something like that).

Could be worth looking for again...although this was a LONG time ago that I read this; around the time I joined the GOF? Prob >2006?

...Methinks I might have posted this before?
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Littlefoot3897 on August 25, 2013, 04:33:55 PM
Quote from: Almaron,Aug 9 2013 on  05:37 PM
Don Bluth also thought this rumor was nuts and was never intending that
Quote

I was sure I'd read that somewhere too, but I wasn't able to confirm this when I tried to search for it online.

However, I do remember reading a bunch of threads on the IMDB message boards for the LBT movies, and one user was (or claimed to have been) a former animator at Sullivan Bluth Studios, and talked a fair deal about events during the production of one or two of their movies (in one thread he talked about the discovery of Judith Barsi's murder). He said in one thread that the "original ending" rumor wasn't true, and noted if it had ever existed, he'd never heard Don Bluth mention it (or something like that).

Could be worth looking for again...although this was a LONG time ago that I read this; around the time I joined the GOF? Prob >2006?

...Methinks I might have posted this before?
dont remember where it was either I read it

maybe someone asked Don Bluth on his forums or something

its funny because its hard to get any info about land before time from him since it looks like he feels the movie wasnt his best because of all those edits and squeals later
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Phantom on September 01, 2013, 12:31:14 PM
I, for one, would have preferred the death ending. It's just more poetic and junk.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: jansenov on September 01, 2013, 01:32:45 PM
^You mean junk as in overused? Poetic and junk. Now that's a combination I haven't heard before.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Phantom on September 01, 2013, 01:36:07 PM
Quote from: jansenov,Sep 1 2013 on  12:32 PM
^You mean junk as in overused? Poetic and junk. Now that's a combination I haven't heard before.
Junk as a replacement for stuff.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Almaron on September 05, 2013, 07:56:17 PM
Quote
I, for one, would have preferred the death ending. It's just more poetic and junk.

Well, there was a Wild Mass Guessing - essentially a strange theory - on TvTropes a while back which suggested that even if not identified as such, it was still happening in the film; all the characters were dead, and the Great Valley was their afterlife. The page is down at the moment, but I think I saved the article to use with a story I never wrote. Let me check...

Yup, I did;

Quote
The earthquake near the beginning was a result of the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, AKA the extinction of the dinosaurs. Meaning everyone was Dead All Along. The film is their journey through purgatory towards heaven, represented by the Great Valley. The dinosaur that comforts Littlefoot directly after his mother's death is an angel trying to get him to overcome his anger over his mother's death, for which he blames both her and (secretly) himself. The lava field is where Cera overcomes her sin of excessive pride, and where the rest of the group learns that there are no "shortcuts" to heaven, and that they must go on the path set for them, and have faith in it, or they'll never get there. The sharptooth is representative of the kids' fear of their own mortality, and by killing him, they have finally let go of all of their earthly attachments, aside from Littlefoot, who still has guilt for the death of his mother. When he finally accepts her death, he finds the Great Valley, along with everyone else, where the rest of their families are waiting for them in the afterlife.

Of course, people pointed out the major flaw with this theory...

Quote
*So his mother went to hell?
**And she still came back to lead Little Foot to Heaven!
***No, she's in heaven. The rest of the dinosaurs are in hell, aka the sequels.

Another person suggested you could view the film as an analogy for religion:

Quote
Littlefoot represents Christian faith. He believes that if you follow the path, no matter how difficult it may be, you will find heaven. Cera represents temptation. She too wants to get into heaven but doesn't want to have to work at it, and so is always looking for an "easy" way. These two spend much of the movie trying to convince Petrie, Duckie, and Spike to follow them. Cera's Heel Face Turn at the end represents the heroes overcoming temptation.
Petrie, Duckie, and Spike each represent a different type of follower. Petrie follows out of fear. Duckie follows out of innocence. Spike follows out of stupidity. All three are easily swayed and have to constantly be kept in line.
The Sharptooth, a mindless force of destruction, represents the sin that threatens to consume our heroes' souls should they ever stray from the path. Notice how when Sharptooth is presumed dead at the beginning of the movie, it is Cera (temptation) who finds and revives him. Notice also that Sharptooth normally only shows up if the heroes stray from the path. Symbolically, just before entering heaven they kill Sharptoothókilling Sin (in a pool of water, similar to a baptism ceremony, as it happens).
The tree-star represents a material possession, which keeps Littlefoot and his followers bound to their mortal coil. They are incapable of transcending the earthly realm while they are dependent on material possessions for comfort. Symbolically, it is destroyed at the halfway point of their journey.
Littlefoot's mother tells him that he can reach the Great Valley by following the sun. In many ancient religions, the Sun = God, so she's essentially saying to follow God. Littlefoot's mother herself could represent the Holy Mother (though combined with the fact that Littlefoot has no father, this interpretation turns Littlefoot into Jesus).

Certainly interesting, both of them - although I don't seriously think either of these would have been intended by the film-makers. As mentioned elsewhere, I wanted to use both of these concepts to make a LBT fic that would take place thousands of years after the events of the films, showing what happened to the last dinosaurs during the K-T event. Think LBT I, but with characters seemingly dying every few chapters (only to realise they were already dead to begin with at the end), and a spectral member of the GOF taking Rooter's place in the story. However, the fic became a jumbled mess of concepts, so I abandoned it.
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: Ducky123 on September 06, 2013, 08:16:18 AM
Those are some interesting yet controversial ideas. The first one seems to fit at first but, as you pointed out, some facts show this theory can't be right. At least not completely. The Littlefoot as a Christian theory is pure nonsence in my view though.

Sadly you abandomed it :( Sounds like a good idea at least though :)
Title: Was it true about Original Ending?
Post by: jansenov on September 06, 2013, 01:43:26 PM
And don't forget the similarities between Jesus' and Littlefoot's birth. ;)

But seriously, there are two other possibilities as well:
a) the movie-makers touched upon Christian concepts while being unaware of touching upon them, or
b) merely used tropes that were introduced into animation by Walt Disney, who himself might have touched upon Christian themes knowingly or unknowingly (by some things I read before, it was very much knowingly, but I can't remember the source so this might be speculation)

Our culture shapes the way in which we think, even if we are unaware of it or openly deny it. For example, when Auguste Comte, the founder of positivism, wanted to replace Christianity with the "religion of humanity", he went so far as to introduce three pillars of religion (Altruism, Order, Progress), seven sacraments, hymns, prayers, and even a calendar. It was essentially Christianity without God or Christ. Or take Friedrich Engels and communism, with its "fall of humanity" (the end of primitive communism of first human societies), its martyrs (fallen revolutionaries), its saints (personality cults of various communist leaders), and the achievement of true communism (the Thousand Year Kingdom after the second coming of Christ). Even some contemporary atheists, like Ray Kurzweil, can be included in this category, with their view of history as unstoppable nad unconditional technological progress that will end in the Technological Singularity, where AI moves so beyond human intelligence that the world becomes unrecognizable to human beings. Yet any of these people would be deeply offended if you called them Christian copycats, but that's what they essentially were.

So, I wouldn't completely exclude any Christian influence on Bluth and co.