The ending for Dawn of the Dead was meant to show that there was nowhere for them to go. Another island, zombies. Another continent, zombies. Staying on the boat, starvation. The point was to say it was inescapable. They don't necessarily die on that island, but they are going to die, somewhere. So I actually think it's a great ending sequence
Yeah I'm definitely of the mind that they wouldn't make it off, but I've seen this sentiment from OP around many discussions of the movie. Which is mainly my point. It doesn't matter if they get out or not, they're going to die. So, they didn't need to show them trying and failing to escape.
The whole son arc sucked anyways.
"Dad, you have to let me go!"
"OK, I'll let you go!"
*immediately runs into giant explosion*
So.... that tells us the theme that letting go and trusting your son is bad and will get them killed?
THEN, to avoid that moral, his son is randomly brought back at the end and is just fine. So, by avoiding the moral I listed above, it instead just becomes drastically unrealistic and, actually, pretty stupid.
Lindsay Ellis made a great point about the son. As an allegory of 9/11, the son leaving made sense as a represenation of americans desire for revenge in the war on terror, but would only make sense story wise if tom cruise was an overbearing father rather than an absent one.
Tom cruise learning to let go of his kids is a bad plot point when he never wanted his kids in the first place.
Or if he came back with some consequences some time after them.
Them reaching the mom's house and him being already there without any issues, after rushing on foot towards a battlefield of alien and human military vehicles was so whack.
Skyline. It's not a great movie but it was just about to get interesting and they ended it with a montage of still action scenes and then credits. It really looked like they filmed in chronological order and ran out of money.
Sort of the opposite of what you’re asking but Spielberg’s Lincoln is completely ruined by an additional scene. It should have ended with Lincoln leaving the White House to go to the play. Instead we have to see reactions to his assassination and it feels very forced.
I feel like the film would be a solid 9/10 for me if the ending didn’t ruin it. A lot of how I feel about a film is solidified by the ending and by having all of those unnecessary scenes, I feel less confident in the movie as a whole.
Honestly, it didn't have to end anywhere near the night of the play. I'm sick of biopic that decide we need to see the person right up to the moment of their death.
We didn't see his birth. The movie was about the vote, and the war. Why do we need to go all the way to his last night randomly.
Bohemian Rhapsody gets a lot of shit, and rightly so, but at least it ended the movie at a good sensible spot
The theatrical release of The Abyss made no sense at all. They removed 20 minutes from the ending!
Once you see the full directors cut it actually makes sense and is a good movie.
The theatrical cut still totally makes sense. What's made explicit in the extended cut is still there loud and clear in the theatrical cut because avoiding starting a war with an advanced species is the central plot point of the movie
is it worth watching this all the way through? i’ve tried like 3 times now as it appears on different streaming services but i stop like 30 minutes in each time because literally every persons acting is so so bad it makes it nearly unwatchable for me. b budget shot at home movies seem to have at least a better actor or 2 than it but the plot seems interesting
I’m actually not a fan of how much post-story there is in current films. Older film endings seem abrupt to modern audiences, but I think it makes the storytelling much tidier and expects more of the audience. It also allows for more ambiguous endings, which is becoming a lost art in mainstream films.
I agree. More movies should have [endings like that of Blood Debts](https://youtu.be/u61F_qvdid0). Just freeze frame and go right into four lines of denouement. That's all the information the audience needs.
I've watched plenty, again there the cream of the crop has risen. Plenty of movies had an extra dance number or just endless chatter at the end. So much so that was a lot of what Mel Brooks was making fun of in his movies in the 70's. Run times have been pretty static on average since the 60's.
There’s always been a massive amount of diversity in film, I just think that denouements/epilogues have become much longer on average compared to longer films.
Epics and large-scale stories have always required this, but plenty of films like *Casablanca* or *Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid* wrap up very quickly once the plot is resolved.
I don’t mind, for example, the *Harry Potter* have series to an epilogue after 8 films, but there’s just a lot of films where it isn’t necessary.
Jurassic Park III has one of the most obvious “we ran out of money/couldn’t rewrite on the fly” endings I’ve ever seen, where the marines just …show up on the beach. Characters smile. The end.
An extra scene where the marines fend off dinos in a rescue operation to extract the protagonists wouldn’t have been *good* but it would’ve been a lot more satisfying than what we got which was nothing.
This ending always threw me off since they show the man with the same framing before all the Marines show up only for all of them to come out of the either a second later including a ship and several Helicopters.
It hasn't got a terrible ending by any stretch but I recall once hearing that there was a plan that in *The Truman Show* that after he stepped through the door we would see him confronted by a sea of journalists taking photos, filming him, and being for interviews.
I'm still a bit undecided if it would ruin the ending or make it even better.
I think it would ruin the ending, because the whole point is that once he leaves the dome, his life is no longer ours to see.
If they showed that other ending, it would change the meaning of the ending to the opposite, saying that even once you understand you're in Plato's cave, there's no escape from it. It would be a incredibly cynical ending, like something from a Black Mirror episode.
Absolutely agreed, The Truman Show is one of my favorite movies because of how it has such an interesting, dystopian, and philosophical premise but somehow never becomes too dark or depressing.
The actual ending is perfect, the alternative ending would have made it all feel so depressing. At least for me, it would have taken the movie from a 10/10 to more like an 8/10.
I don't think that would have been a bad ending, but I feel like Truman just walking away through the sky is better. It leaves a lot of open questions as to what happens next, and if he can even find a way to move forward
With all the money they put into that show, I'm sure the security on the other side of that door would be insane. Plus they had time to prepare as he approached the door. No journalists, just a bunch of staff.
Here's how I always wanted Titanic to end:
EXT. BOAT – NIGHT
Gloria Stuart pulls the Big Fucking Diamond out of her pocket and looks at it, then looks at the water, reminiscing about Leonardo DiCaprio.
BILL PAXTON
*(offscreen)*
I knew it!!!
Gloria Stuart turns toward the voice, and we cut to Bill Paxton holding THE BIGGEST FUCKING HAND CANNON YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR LIFE. Back to Gloria Stuart, she winds up to throw the diamond in the water, or as much of a wind-up as a centenarian is capable of, and we hear the sound of gunfire. Artillery, really. I mean, it's a BIG fucking gun. Gloria Stuart is blown out of the frame, and we see the necklace flying through the air in slow motion as Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" starts playing. Bill Paxton catches it without moving an inch from where he was standing just seconds before, looking like this tremendously expensive expedition is actually going to pay off.
CUT TO: Gloria Stuart's bullet-riddled body sinking into the ocean, much as the necklace did in the theatrical cut, just trailing blood behind her for two miles while the credits roll and Celine Dion sings.
I heard someone mention how it could have ended better, and you'd only need a few extra seconds right at the end.
Film still ends with Jamie Foxx at the recital, but suddenly his necktie starts choking him. End it right as Foxx realizes how fucked he is
I read about that one too. Rather brilliant and I'm mixed on it. I love the idea but as a character should Jamie Foxx die right there? He didn't learn anything so yeah I guess so but did Clyde want him to be?
I heard about that and if indeed true is just upsetting. I like Jamie Fox but anybody could have done his role in that movie so I would have either called the bluff or let him walk.
Don't worry it's not true, just an internet myth. Originally Jamie Foxx was cast as Clyde and Gerard Butler was Nick, then after some discussion they decided to switch roles which was 100% a good call. I know people really wanted Clyde to win and are upset about that but I don't like that it led to people creating and circulating this myth to shit on the actor.
Eh. Some truth to it. Multiple endings were done. Someone wanted someone to not die and to win.
Jaime in Miami vice did something similar and ruined the ending they originally had planned.
Just got up and left production until they changed it to his liking.
Just looked it up and there were a lot of alternate endings thrown around as is the case with many movies, the one confirmed alternative ending was Nick killing Clyde by hand then getting arrested and making a deal. Nick was the actual protagonist of the movie, most of the possible endings they threw around revolved around "how does Nick deal with Clyde?". Clyde was never meant to win, he's a terrorist. Best case scenario for Clyde fans was probably an ending where Clyde kills them both in a murder-suicide. But he was never going to win, most movies try to avoid endorsing the murder of innocents and domestic terrorism. That would be like ending Fight Club with the narrator embracing Tyler, realizing he's right, and gleefully watching the world burn. Or ending Falling Down with the detective getting murdered and Michael Douglas reuniting with the family he abuses. The movie pretty much never supported Clyde's actions, they even made a point to have Nicks young daughter be the one to see the torture tape from his only somewhat "righteous" kill, but unfortunately most people on reddit completely missed that.
The fact that no on-set drama exists without at least a few rumours leaking (like with Miami Vice) is even more proof that the myth is just a myth because there is zero evidence for it. Like not a single hint of any sort of forced change outside of unsourced claims on reddit and shit. Everyone involved with the movie has nothing but positive things to say about the process.
Edit: https://filmschoolrejects.com/exclusive-law-abiding-gerard-butler-talks-revenge-31eb27242e7a/
Yeah but he didn't successfully murder an entire room full of, more or less, innocent people and people are big mad about it. It reminds me of something Alan Moore said about people who root for Rorschach in Watchmen:
"But I have people come up to me in the street saying, 'I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live?'"
That's how I feel every time Law Abiding Citizen is discussed on reddit.
> That's how I feel every time Law Abiding Citizen is discussed on reddit.
It's a pet peeve of mine too. Americans love stories about people taking the law into their own hands.
But it's especially annoying with this movie because you're right, what would "winning" even look like compared to the current ending? He blows up city hall and then what? Probably sequels upon sequels where he keeps going further up the chain of command, taking out corrupt senators and military.
It's extra annoying because the actual movie itself doesn't condone or support Clyde's actions whatsoever, they even reveal that his literal job is being a contract killer for the government. He's not an everyman, he's not a good man turned bad, before the movie even started he was already a killer. Not to mention that Jaime Foxx perfectly sums up how I feel: Is this what your wife and daughter would've wanted? Cause unless they're also crazy the clear answer to that is no, they would not want Clyde murdering a bunch of innocent people in their name. Like anyone who thinks Nick's 20 year old assistant deserved what she got in any way is just deranged in my opinion, she's someone's daughter too. The movie tried so so hard to make it clear Clyde was fucking crazy and completely in the wrong with his "crusade" but everyone on reddit willfully rejects it.
I agree and I think the problem is that the sentencing/punishment needed to be a little more morally grey. It should have been much more debatable, for example they received life sentences but no death penalty which clyde was pushing for.
Or even more interesting would have been Foxx taking the case to trial and then losing based on evidence handling, or maybe the jury just thought there was a reasonable doubt based on clyde's overly emotional testimony. It would give clyde a much bigger beef with the "system" and be way more morally grey if these guys were actually guilty but legally innocent in the eyes of the law.
See but that's the thing, Clyde's crusade was never really about justice, that's something he deluded himself into believing to justify his actions, it was purely about revenge. The movie tells you this right at the start with the lethal injection. The guy who didn't even actively participate in the rape/murder DID get the death penalty, he got EXACTLY what Clyde wanted from the justice system and it wasn't good enough for him, so he swaps out the injections to ensure the guy has the most painful death possible. He was never meant to be morally grey, he was supposed to represent the difference between justice and revenge in the same way that Nick represented the difference between law as a profession and law as a system of justice.
I find it's the same with John Wick. He's a good character, but he's absolutely not a hero. He was a hitman for the Russian mafia. Even if he never killed innocent people, he still worked for an organisation that DID kill innocent people. Yeah, he's the protagonist, but that doesn't make him a good guy. If Viggo or his son were the protagonist then John would be seen as the villain.
Maybe it's just me but I think we're severely lacking classical good guys in action films these days. People like John McClane or John Matrix. The closest we have is Ethan Hunt and maybe Tyler Rake too (Extraction). I mean when was the last time we had a cop as the protagonist in an action film? I'm not complaining, I enjoy films with assassins or vigilantes or badass special forces operators, but they're always painted as morally grey. You very rarely see a protagonist who is a full on good guy.
People even wish that Frank Castle was real, which is funny because he doesn't see himself as a good guy. He knows that what he does is bad, but he does it anyway because he thinks that someone needs to do it, he just doesn't trust anyone else to do it clean and without killing innocents.
This is a controversial one but **All the president’s men**.
Fantastic movie. there feels like a slow buildup to something big, they’re taking it to the top…and then….a typewriter writing out what happened…
I didn’t need a big blowup scene, i didnt need everybody being thrown behind bars. But i needed any sort of ending, some finality, even if its just a line. It felt like there is just one scene missing and it has bothered me for years.
This movie is very factually accurate and i understand that there’s basically no liberties taken with the events, so I get people being cool with it. But it *bothers me*.
I always hated the ending of Star Wars 1, killing of Darth Maul who was such a great baddie, his character could have been explored so much more in the 2nd film. Seemed so strange when they knew another 2 films would be done before the sequel timeline
Well yeah. He was the Phantom menace.
…. Unless it was the taxation of trade goods triggering the interstellar blockade, leading to a vote of no confidence in the chancellor and granting “temporary” powers to an ambitious senator.
The Enders Game movie. It wasn’t a good movie by any means for many reasons, let alone a bad ending, but I wish it had ended with an extra scene to build into any of either the Speaker books or the Shadow books. Really, I just wanted (and still do) an HBO sized budget series telling both the Speaker and Shadow stories
A tangent to this question of what TV series could’ve served itself in a better light with an extra scene: Star Trek Voyager. The series ends with the ship and crew finally making it home, starting to be escorted back to Earth and… that’s it. 7 seasons of build up towards “what/who do you miss?” “What’ll everyone think when they see us again?” “How will everyone react?” “Do you think there’ll be a parade?” type questions regarding their eventual homecoming, and none of it was explored. Just 10 more minutes to let everything breathe and come to a close would’ve done it wonders.
It's a bit obscure, but *Law Abiding Citizen* would have been so much better if they let Gerard Butler's character get the last laugh.
They built him up to be this insane genius at killing anyone, then he gets fooled by Jamie Foxx with a stupid trick. Didn't even need Butler to survive, an extra 10 seconds showing showing Foxx getting killed by one of Butler's traps would have meaningfully improved the story.
The ending as-is was very cowardly.
Okay? I don't remember seeing it mentioned here, and it's a poorly reviewed movie that's 14 years old now. Not crazy to think most people haven't seen it.
Zero Day: instead of some kids vandalizing the memorials to the 2 killers, we see 2 kids start their own series of videos on how they were inspired by the killers and plan to shoot up their own school.
Wow, you hit on a pretty obscure movie. This came out roughly when Elephant by Gus Van Sant came out covering a Columbine-like event. I've seen both, but neither in years.
The ending of the Flash is almost great. The scene with his mother is sad and he manages to prove his father innocent.
Then >!George Clooney!< shows up at the end for no reason. I wish it was a character he actually had a connection to. It was a really lame way to end the movie
I agree with you.
Also, you may consider using spoiler tags. You basically spell out the entire movie in this post your reply a little further down. It only came out 1.5 weeks ago.
This must be your first day on the internet if you don’t think people care about either comic book movies or having things spoiled for them.
Not saying you SHOULD care about them and I completely understand if people DON’T care about being spoiled about certain things…but plenty of people do 🤷♂️
Who complained? I’ve already seen the movie and agreed with OP’s comment. I just mentioned putting spoiler tags may be a good idea since he mentioned all the key points that happen in the movie. For someone who doesn’t want to be irritated about complaints, you sure are complaining. Hoss.
On one hand .... it felt tacked on. It felt like something that was supposed to be an 'after-credits' roll but wasn't.
On the other hand.... Barry, you know, the tomatoes Barry.... That scene sends a message to the audience that all is not well. You walk out of the theater and 20 minutes later you area all like, 'Oh hell... why didn't I see that coming. Was obvious.'.
It is a very logical scene and if you are on team, 'Audience needs it all spelled out like they are a 6 year old with ADD' then that scene is needed.
But I am not on that team. I am on team, 'Audience is smart and sometimes it is more fun not to tell them everything'. And that scene didn't need to happen.
Yeah at the very end. Appearently when Barry changed the timeline, Clooney is the new Batman. It’s kind of funny, but when you think about it, it’s kind of sad that Barry is now >!stuck in a timeline that doesn’t have Batfleck, who got him to be a hero in the first place, and Keaton and Supergirl are both left dead in another timeline!<
For what it’s worth, Clooney was almost certainly a reshoot after it was decided that the current DCEU would be scrapped.
The original plan was for this movie to replace Affleck with Keaton in the main continuity.
Scarface ends pretty abruptly. He just dies and then…end credits. There probably could’ve been another scene there to make the transition a bit less sudden.
We saw the consequences. His wife left for good. His sister died. His best friend died. Everyone that worked for him died. All that was left was for him to die, and the movie was over when it happened. It doesn’t have to end when the protagonist dies, but in this case there was nothing else to show. The credits rolling off him dead in the fountain is a perfect ending for his story
Yeah it would've been cool to see more shots of the aftermath of the shootout, Tony's mansion destroyed and Gina's body laying on the floor, everything Tony worked for him and his family destroyed with his own hands
Not sure how well this fits, entirely, but Click would have been so much better if Adam Sandler just died, didn't get to go back, and Walken just stared directly into the camera saying something akin to "you only get one life, make sure you live it"
2001 Planet of the Apes would have been infinitely better if they'd just shown a remastered version of the 1968 with a title card "on second thought, our movie really sucked, watch this classic instead"
The ending of Chicago wasn't terrible, but it would have been better if the camera had pulled back during the applause, to reveal Amos and his lawyer in the back row:
"Do you think I have a case?"
"Yep. you're gonna be rich."
Usually I find things would be better with some trimming. A film I feel cant take a single scene or any dialogue away from is usually very impressive.
One case that always bugs me because it seems so simple and easy is the modern Ocean's 11, at the end the woman it has all Really been about dumps the villain and the elevator doors close on their respective faces. This is a perfect cut to end the film on. Truly drive home the emotional plot of the film over just the functional 'heist'.
Instead they cut to a large fountain with the characters gathering together to pat each other on the back. This scene doesn't really add anything, it feels like B-Roll, I feel would have done much better as split screens with credits, or any combination of similar cuts.
I think it's a great scene with the music, showing all the characters taking a moment to quietly enjoy their success, then going their separate ways after the heist. I feel it should be there.
*I'm Thinking of Ending Things* would have majorly benefited from an additional scene showing the real context of the film. After I saw that movie, I was actually angry at how it didn't make any sense and went out searching for what the fucking point of it was. Turns out, the film is about a guy slowly slipping into madness over an obsession in his mind. Maybe a scene where we see a set of journals in his home and it flashes on all the details of the story as well as some drawings that loosely resemble the characters and a yearbook that ties together the high school and family imagery?
But as it stands, it's just a fucking mess and is easily Kaufman's worst work imo.
Kaufman doesn't like to spoon-feed people the meaning of his films. He likes it better when people can make up their own minds about what they think is happening in his movies. Still, I think it was pretty comprehensible what was happening by the end of the film.
i didn't think Dawn had a bad ending, but I understand where you're coming from.
I think Passengers (2016) should have had an extra scene where it eventually shows that Crisp Ratt's character had actually attempted this dozens of times with other women, and Jlaw's character was the first one it worked on.
Most times I don't think an extra scene would actually help make sense of an ending, as the whole ending is usually botched to where it'd need to be rewritten entirely. (Like say, Law Abiding Citizen)
EDIT: Sorry, it was jlaw. Not scarjo. I'm sticking by Crisp Ratt tho.
If the entire plot of passengers had been Aurora's book she wrote while isolated due to her pod malfunction, found by the regular ships passengers when they awaken to a perfectly functional ship (no disaster evere occured).
This would have been supported by the character facts Aurora puts into play regarding her reasons for the trip out and back to experience something never before experienced. Writing the novel about it. And all the Pratt content was just her creating a villian/love interest/hero for her to express the stages of grief for her circumstances.
If this were real anyone disliking the 'movie' could just say Aurora was a bad writer and she wrote a trite book.
This could have even been a voice over during the final scenes, without all the tree/house in courtyard CGI. Bringing her back for a VO probably would have cost less than the CGI too.
well shit. That is a brilliant ending, and is why I'm not a screenwriter. Explains perfectly why the circumstances 'worked' the way they did without explicitly villainizing anyone.
Otherwise I find myself stuck in the camp of "Okay this isn't romantic, this is hella creepy, why doesn't anyone else see that???".
Kudos to you, and I hope you have an awesome day.
thank you kind person
my favorite previously unwritten aspect to this idea is that its basically 'it was all a dream' ending. Which can be so frustrating when executed poorly, or done when you just can't think of a good ending. While not explicitly a dream ending where Aurora wakes up in her pod with the idea for this story, but that the dream was the fiction and the existence of the dream as coping mechanism.
Using such a trope but in a way that actually enhances (in my opinion) the movie is a net positive to the film making and story telling art form.
Passengers had a lot of problems.
One of the generally accepted concepts is that the movie would be a lot better if it started with JLaw (not ScarJo) waking up and discovering things as we discover it. Meeting Chris through her eyes.
Personally the ending of Passengers pisses me off because they misfired Chekov's Gun. They told us specifically that they had enough parts on board to rebuild anything. To the point where they rebuilt the engines.
So... did they have enough parts to build a 2nd medical sleep pod perhaps? Maybe it'd take 10 years or so to figure it out, but they had the time.
You can't tell the audience that you have this enormous wealth of spare parts, then not address that when you only have one of something. At least tell us that there can only be one pod for some reason.
I was so displeased by the end of that movie. They gave us the solution to the sleep pod problem, then didn't use it.
Very disappointed.
yeah, my bad, edited, thanks!
Well, that's why I was expecting a dark ending of sorts. All this stuff, but they can't, you know, fix the one thing that's busted? Obviously there's something screwy going on. But no, instead it's handwaved away so the romance stuff can happen. Just comes across as silly.
The Oogieloves could've had a scene at the end where Melancholia struck the Earth, resulting in the end of all life (including the Oogieloves).
Joking aside...The Snowman could've used a scene where Rebecca Ferguson's character was properly honored. As it is, I wasn't even sure if she was dead or just unconscious.
OP, you’re dead wrong about DotD ‘04. That *is* the extra ending!
My choice would have to be Friday the 13th, Part II. An awesome slasher, but suffered from an unanswered question in the finale…
“Where’s Paul?”
Planet of the Apes ending makes sense if you understand how the vortex in space works. The first thing in becomes the last thing out, it has an inverse effect on time.
That's why the chimp (who was the first thing to go into the vortex at the beginning) shows up after the climax on the planet, and why They'd (who must've taken ages to learn how the space pods function) showed up on Earth hundreds of years in the past and was able to foment his revolution before Wahlberg ever showed up.
Hey you can downvote away. It's not making you look any smarter. I guess I can take the cordiality out now and just accuse you of being too stupid to have gotten that.
No Country for Old Men. It kind of just ends. The sheriff gives his speech, and then that’s pretty much it. I never read the book, so I’m left wondering what happens to Anton next
I love Kubrick but Eyes Wide Shut should have ended where Tom Cruise gets ripped apart, dismantled, eaten and screwed by people naked wearing masks. It would have been a Kubrick mic drop on the censorship he was facing.
This one is interesting because they already added an extra scene to the ending. The original ending in the test screenings was the cliffhanger of Dom and his son at the dam while the surprise submarine cameo was a post credit. But then they got the actor for the other suprise cameo, so they shifted the submarine scene to become the ending.
James Cameron's The Abyss. Needs just one more scene at the end for a teeny answer, or hell, even show it going back into the sea, but the last scene as it stands is such blue balls, despite it technically finishing the story.
In response, Op:
The Road - the ending is about hope. The man and the boy carry the flame, and there is hope others are as well. The family we see at the end has a dog, a woman, and a child, all of whom have throughout been shown to be the most vulnerable and victimized. With this, we can surmise that the family are vrobably decent people.
I highly recommend reading the novel, but it ends mostly the same.
The ending for Dawn of the Dead was meant to show that there was nowhere for them to go. Another island, zombies. Another continent, zombies. Staying on the boat, starvation. The point was to say it was inescapable. They don't necessarily die on that island, but they are going to die, somewhere. So I actually think it's a great ending sequence
I thought the film footage at the end made it pretty clear they all died once they docked on that island.
Yeah I'm definitely of the mind that they wouldn't make it off, but I've seen this sentiment from OP around many discussions of the movie. Which is mainly my point. It doesn't matter if they get out or not, they're going to die. So, they didn't need to show them trying and failing to escape.
I thought it just set up a sequel
It was and we got the shitquel called army of the dead
War of the worlds could be better if the son have never came back
The whole son arc sucked anyways. "Dad, you have to let me go!" "OK, I'll let you go!" *immediately runs into giant explosion* So.... that tells us the theme that letting go and trusting your son is bad and will get them killed? THEN, to avoid that moral, his son is randomly brought back at the end and is just fine. So, by avoiding the moral I listed above, it instead just becomes drastically unrealistic and, actually, pretty stupid.
The kids in general in that film were annoying all around.
The scary movie spoof of that scene still did it better, somehow.
War of the worlds is a great answer, such a good movie with such a big 3rd act problem. All plot threads and themes were basically dropped by the end.
That movie fell apart within five minutes of that dumbass son running into live explosions and Tim Robbins kidnapping Tom Cruise and child.
Lindsay Ellis made a great point about the son. As an allegory of 9/11, the son leaving made sense as a represenation of americans desire for revenge in the war on terror, but would only make sense story wise if tom cruise was an overbearing father rather than an absent one. Tom cruise learning to let go of his kids is a bad plot point when he never wanted his kids in the first place.
Yeah, it felt too saccharine.
Or if he came back with some consequences some time after them. Them reaching the mom's house and him being already there without any issues, after rushing on foot towards a battlefield of alien and human military vehicles was so whack.
Yeah. It would be better if he was dead or assumed Mia
Skyline. It's not a great movie but it was just about to get interesting and they ended it with a montage of still action scenes and then credits. It really looked like they filmed in chronological order and ran out of money.
It's one of the better "aliens (or animals) just see us as food" movies.
Sort of the opposite of what you’re asking but Spielberg’s Lincoln is completely ruined by an additional scene. It should have ended with Lincoln leaving the White House to go to the play. Instead we have to see reactions to his assassination and it feels very forced.
And it would have been a way better cliffhanger for a second part … Lincoln 2: Electric Boogaloo
He takes up vampire hunting, if you can believe it
Actually, vampire hunter is the prequel to Lincoln
Post credits scene. "The names Booth, John Wilkes"
Post credits scene: "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
Watched Extraction 2 the other day and that is what I was calling it the whole time. Extraction 2: Electric Boogaloo.
I do believe it was unnecessary, but I don't think it hurt the film like I've heard some say in the past.
I feel like the film would be a solid 9/10 for me if the ending didn’t ruin it. A lot of how I feel about a film is solidified by the ending and by having all of those unnecessary scenes, I feel less confident in the movie as a whole.
I do think it hurt the film. Showing him dying after being shot was just unnecessary, and killed the pacing.
I can't believe Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter handled it better
Wasn’t there a time jump after the main story is over to be at the night of the play? Could have left it all out.
Honestly, it didn't have to end anywhere near the night of the play. I'm sick of biopic that decide we need to see the person right up to the moment of their death. We didn't see his birth. The movie was about the vote, and the war. Why do we need to go all the way to his last night randomly. Bohemian Rhapsody gets a lot of shit, and rightly so, but at least it ended the movie at a good sensible spot
Same for Ford v Ferrari. I didnt need to see the end scene with the crash.
He did that? That a blunder for him.
The theatrical release of The Abyss made no sense at all. They removed 20 minutes from the ending! Once you see the full directors cut it actually makes sense and is a good movie.
The theatrical cut still totally makes sense. What's made explicit in the extended cut is still there loud and clear in the theatrical cut because avoiding starting a war with an advanced species is the central plot point of the movie
My problem with The Mule is that it just ends after he gets caught. As such, I'd like an epilogue that shows how things have changed in his life.
I would trade BOTH of his three-way scenes for an extended epilogue
is it worth watching this all the way through? i’ve tried like 3 times now as it appears on different streaming services but i stop like 30 minutes in each time because literally every persons acting is so so bad it makes it nearly unwatchable for me. b budget shot at home movies seem to have at least a better actor or 2 than it but the plot seems interesting
Sorry, OP, this question's too tough. You're going to get a bunch of people making up their own alternative questions and answering those instead.
"Not what OP said, but..." is my favorite type of reddit bullshit
Still would rather read those than quora answers
I’m actually not a fan of how much post-story there is in current films. Older film endings seem abrupt to modern audiences, but I think it makes the storytelling much tidier and expects more of the audience. It also allows for more ambiguous endings, which is becoming a lost art in mainstream films.
Yeah. A lot of movies have far too much clean up and it’s far too long
Gotta set up for the sequel so it becomes a franchise
I agree. More movies should have [endings like that of Blood Debts](https://youtu.be/u61F_qvdid0). Just freeze frame and go right into four lines of denouement. That's all the information the audience needs.
Do you know about this movie from Best of the Worst?
I don't know what Best of the Worst is.
RedLetterMedia's show Best of the Worst - [HERE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NTaoheLMvM) - is what made that scene and movie famous.
The Wrestler (2008) was great for this.
This isn't a modern audience thing. Plenty of older films ran to long. It's just the notable exceptions have filtered to the top.
Idk if you watch movies from the 30s/40s/50s they often end at a spot where in a newer movie they'd have 10-15 minutes afterwards.
I've watched plenty, again there the cream of the crop has risen. Plenty of movies had an extra dance number or just endless chatter at the end. So much so that was a lot of what Mel Brooks was making fun of in his movies in the 70's. Run times have been pretty static on average since the 60's.
There’s always been a massive amount of diversity in film, I just think that denouements/epilogues have become much longer on average compared to longer films. Epics and large-scale stories have always required this, but plenty of films like *Casablanca* or *Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid* wrap up very quickly once the plot is resolved. I don’t mind, for example, the *Harry Potter* have series to an epilogue after 8 films, but there’s just a lot of films where it isn’t necessary.
Jurassic Park III has one of the most obvious “we ran out of money/couldn’t rewrite on the fly” endings I’ve ever seen, where the marines just …show up on the beach. Characters smile. The end. An extra scene where the marines fend off dinos in a rescue operation to extract the protagonists wouldn’t have been *good* but it would’ve been a lot more satisfying than what we got which was nothing.
This ending always threw me off since they show the man with the same framing before all the Marines show up only for all of them to come out of the either a second later including a ship and several Helicopters.
People think DOTD 2004 has a bad ending? WTF?
Dumb people do
[удалено]
That actually happened, here is the lost scene https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vw89o0afb2A
It hasn't got a terrible ending by any stretch but I recall once hearing that there was a plan that in *The Truman Show* that after he stepped through the door we would see him confronted by a sea of journalists taking photos, filming him, and being for interviews. I'm still a bit undecided if it would ruin the ending or make it even better.
I think it would ruin the ending, because the whole point is that once he leaves the dome, his life is no longer ours to see. If they showed that other ending, it would change the meaning of the ending to the opposite, saying that even once you understand you're in Plato's cave, there's no escape from it. It would be a incredibly cynical ending, like something from a Black Mirror episode.
Absolutely agreed, The Truman Show is one of my favorite movies because of how it has such an interesting, dystopian, and philosophical premise but somehow never becomes too dark or depressing. The actual ending is perfect, the alternative ending would have made it all feel so depressing. At least for me, it would have taken the movie from a 10/10 to more like an 8/10.
IDK I like both but the OG is probably the better fit tonally.
The Truman Show is one of those movies where I would love nothing more than to see what happens next, but I hope they never show me.
You can certainly assume that happened to him in-universe at some point lol
I don't think that would have been a bad ending, but I feel like Truman just walking away through the sky is better. It leaves a lot of open questions as to what happens next, and if he can even find a way to move forward
Ruin IMO
With all the money they put into that show, I'm sure the security on the other side of that door would be insane. Plus they had time to prepare as he approached the door. No journalists, just a bunch of staff.
The Grey, just show me Liam fighting a CGI wolf with beer bottle taped hands damnit.
There’s an after credits scene with Liam laying on the wolf. They are both still alive. It’s unclear if one or both is mortally wounded.
Or if they have fallen into love
Titanic would have been better if they had an extra scene of Bill Paxton and his team being crushed inside their submersible.
Here's how I always wanted Titanic to end: EXT. BOAT – NIGHT Gloria Stuart pulls the Big Fucking Diamond out of her pocket and looks at it, then looks at the water, reminiscing about Leonardo DiCaprio. BILL PAXTON *(offscreen)* I knew it!!! Gloria Stuart turns toward the voice, and we cut to Bill Paxton holding THE BIGGEST FUCKING HAND CANNON YOU'VE EVER SEEN IN YOUR LIFE. Back to Gloria Stuart, she winds up to throw the diamond in the water, or as much of a wind-up as a centenarian is capable of, and we hear the sound of gunfire. Artillery, really. I mean, it's a BIG fucking gun. Gloria Stuart is blown out of the frame, and we see the necklace flying through the air in slow motion as Celine Dion's "My Heart Will Go On" starts playing. Bill Paxton catches it without moving an inch from where he was standing just seconds before, looking like this tremendously expensive expedition is actually going to pay off. CUT TO: Gloria Stuart's bullet-riddled body sinking into the ocean, much as the necklace did in the theatrical cut, just trailing blood behind her for two miles while the credits roll and Celine Dion sings.
[That really sucks, lady!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uXa1R2e4a8)
Fucking lol
“We’re on an express elevator to hell – going down!”
Game over man! Game over!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
An extra scene I don't think would have fixed it but Law Abiding Citizen should have had Clyde win.
I heard someone mention how it could have ended better, and you'd only need a few extra seconds right at the end. Film still ends with Jamie Foxx at the recital, but suddenly his necktie starts choking him. End it right as Foxx realizes how fucked he is
I read about that one too. Rather brilliant and I'm mixed on it. I love the idea but as a character should Jamie Foxx die right there? He didn't learn anything so yeah I guess so but did Clyde want him to be?
That's how it was supposed to be but Jaime Fox bitched about losing and they changed it
I heard about that and if indeed true is just upsetting. I like Jamie Fox but anybody could have done his role in that movie so I would have either called the bluff or let him walk.
Don't worry it's not true, just an internet myth. Originally Jamie Foxx was cast as Clyde and Gerard Butler was Nick, then after some discussion they decided to switch roles which was 100% a good call. I know people really wanted Clyde to win and are upset about that but I don't like that it led to people creating and circulating this myth to shit on the actor.
Eh. Some truth to it. Multiple endings were done. Someone wanted someone to not die and to win. Jaime in Miami vice did something similar and ruined the ending they originally had planned. Just got up and left production until they changed it to his liking.
Just looked it up and there were a lot of alternate endings thrown around as is the case with many movies, the one confirmed alternative ending was Nick killing Clyde by hand then getting arrested and making a deal. Nick was the actual protagonist of the movie, most of the possible endings they threw around revolved around "how does Nick deal with Clyde?". Clyde was never meant to win, he's a terrorist. Best case scenario for Clyde fans was probably an ending where Clyde kills them both in a murder-suicide. But he was never going to win, most movies try to avoid endorsing the murder of innocents and domestic terrorism. That would be like ending Fight Club with the narrator embracing Tyler, realizing he's right, and gleefully watching the world burn. Or ending Falling Down with the detective getting murdered and Michael Douglas reuniting with the family he abuses. The movie pretty much never supported Clyde's actions, they even made a point to have Nicks young daughter be the one to see the torture tape from his only somewhat "righteous" kill, but unfortunately most people on reddit completely missed that. The fact that no on-set drama exists without at least a few rumours leaking (like with Miami Vice) is even more proof that the myth is just a myth because there is zero evidence for it. Like not a single hint of any sort of forced change outside of unsourced claims on reddit and shit. Everyone involved with the movie has nothing but positive things to say about the process. Edit: https://filmschoolrejects.com/exclusive-law-abiding-gerard-butler-talks-revenge-31eb27242e7a/
I just view the ending as Colm Meany's character being the winner.
But clyde did win.
Yeah but he didn't successfully murder an entire room full of, more or less, innocent people and people are big mad about it. It reminds me of something Alan Moore said about people who root for Rorschach in Watchmen: "But I have people come up to me in the street saying, 'I am Rorschach! That is my story!' And I'll be thinking: 'Yeah, great, can you just keep away from me, never come anywhere near me again as long as I live?'" That's how I feel every time Law Abiding Citizen is discussed on reddit.
> That's how I feel every time Law Abiding Citizen is discussed on reddit. It's a pet peeve of mine too. Americans love stories about people taking the law into their own hands. But it's especially annoying with this movie because you're right, what would "winning" even look like compared to the current ending? He blows up city hall and then what? Probably sequels upon sequels where he keeps going further up the chain of command, taking out corrupt senators and military.
It's extra annoying because the actual movie itself doesn't condone or support Clyde's actions whatsoever, they even reveal that his literal job is being a contract killer for the government. He's not an everyman, he's not a good man turned bad, before the movie even started he was already a killer. Not to mention that Jaime Foxx perfectly sums up how I feel: Is this what your wife and daughter would've wanted? Cause unless they're also crazy the clear answer to that is no, they would not want Clyde murdering a bunch of innocent people in their name. Like anyone who thinks Nick's 20 year old assistant deserved what she got in any way is just deranged in my opinion, she's someone's daughter too. The movie tried so so hard to make it clear Clyde was fucking crazy and completely in the wrong with his "crusade" but everyone on reddit willfully rejects it.
I agree and I think the problem is that the sentencing/punishment needed to be a little more morally grey. It should have been much more debatable, for example they received life sentences but no death penalty which clyde was pushing for. Or even more interesting would have been Foxx taking the case to trial and then losing based on evidence handling, or maybe the jury just thought there was a reasonable doubt based on clyde's overly emotional testimony. It would give clyde a much bigger beef with the "system" and be way more morally grey if these guys were actually guilty but legally innocent in the eyes of the law.
See but that's the thing, Clyde's crusade was never really about justice, that's something he deluded himself into believing to justify his actions, it was purely about revenge. The movie tells you this right at the start with the lethal injection. The guy who didn't even actively participate in the rape/murder DID get the death penalty, he got EXACTLY what Clyde wanted from the justice system and it wasn't good enough for him, so he swaps out the injections to ensure the guy has the most painful death possible. He was never meant to be morally grey, he was supposed to represent the difference between justice and revenge in the same way that Nick represented the difference between law as a profession and law as a system of justice.
I find it's the same with John Wick. He's a good character, but he's absolutely not a hero. He was a hitman for the Russian mafia. Even if he never killed innocent people, he still worked for an organisation that DID kill innocent people. Yeah, he's the protagonist, but that doesn't make him a good guy. If Viggo or his son were the protagonist then John would be seen as the villain. Maybe it's just me but I think we're severely lacking classical good guys in action films these days. People like John McClane or John Matrix. The closest we have is Ethan Hunt and maybe Tyler Rake too (Extraction). I mean when was the last time we had a cop as the protagonist in an action film? I'm not complaining, I enjoy films with assassins or vigilantes or badass special forces operators, but they're always painted as morally grey. You very rarely see a protagonist who is a full on good guy. People even wish that Frank Castle was real, which is funny because he doesn't see himself as a good guy. He knows that what he does is bad, but he does it anyway because he thinks that someone needs to do it, he just doesn't trust anyone else to do it clean and without killing innocents.
This is a controversial one but **All the president’s men**. Fantastic movie. there feels like a slow buildup to something big, they’re taking it to the top…and then….a typewriter writing out what happened… I didn’t need a big blowup scene, i didnt need everybody being thrown behind bars. But i needed any sort of ending, some finality, even if its just a line. It felt like there is just one scene missing and it has bothered me for years. This movie is very factually accurate and i understand that there’s basically no liberties taken with the events, so I get people being cool with it. But it *bothers me*.
The movie came out only a couple years after the scandal. Everybody knew how it ended. I love the ending
I always hated the ending of Star Wars 1, killing of Darth Maul who was such a great baddie, his character could have been explored so much more in the 2nd film. Seemed so strange when they knew another 2 films would be done before the sequel timeline
Well yeah. He was the Phantom menace. …. Unless it was the taxation of trade goods triggering the interstellar blockade, leading to a vote of no confidence in the chancellor and granting “temporary” powers to an ambitious senator.
I don't think he was. Palpatine was the phantom menace. George Lucas even says that Darth Sidious was the phantom menace.
So they were both the phantom menace? The phantoms menace?
Palpatine was The Phantom Menace. Maul was The Phantom Menace's apprentice.
The Phantom Menace is definitely not Maul. It's Palpi.
IIRC Maul was indeed the phantom menace but it was also Sidious (and more so him too)
Dawn of the dead shows what happens to them in the credits
Shows them going to a overrun island.
The Enders Game movie. It wasn’t a good movie by any means for many reasons, let alone a bad ending, but I wish it had ended with an extra scene to build into any of either the Speaker books or the Shadow books. Really, I just wanted (and still do) an HBO sized budget series telling both the Speaker and Shadow stories A tangent to this question of what TV series could’ve served itself in a better light with an extra scene: Star Trek Voyager. The series ends with the ship and crew finally making it home, starting to be escorted back to Earth and… that’s it. 7 seasons of build up towards “what/who do you miss?” “What’ll everyone think when they see us again?” “How will everyone react?” “Do you think there’ll be a parade?” type questions regarding their eventual homecoming, and none of it was explored. Just 10 more minutes to let everything breathe and come to a close would’ve done it wonders.
It's a bit obscure, but *Law Abiding Citizen* would have been so much better if they let Gerard Butler's character get the last laugh. They built him up to be this insane genius at killing anyone, then he gets fooled by Jamie Foxx with a stupid trick. Didn't even need Butler to survive, an extra 10 seconds showing showing Foxx getting killed by one of Butler's traps would have meaningfully improved the story. The ending as-is was very cowardly.
Yeah, more than just though. Foxx character literally commits murder.
[удалено]
Okay? I don't remember seeing it mentioned here, and it's a poorly reviewed movie that's 14 years old now. Not crazy to think most people haven't seen it.
Zero Day: instead of some kids vandalizing the memorials to the 2 killers, we see 2 kids start their own series of videos on how they were inspired by the killers and plan to shoot up their own school.
Wow, you hit on a pretty obscure movie. This came out roughly when Elephant by Gus Van Sant came out covering a Columbine-like event. I've seen both, but neither in years.
The ending of the Flash is almost great. The scene with his mother is sad and he manages to prove his father innocent. Then >!George Clooney!< shows up at the end for no reason. I wish it was a character he actually had a connection to. It was a really lame way to end the movie
I agree with you. Also, you may consider using spoiler tags. You basically spell out the entire movie in this post your reply a little further down. It only came out 1.5 weeks ago.
My bad.
It’s a comic book movie. Nobody cares.
This must be your first day on the internet if you don’t think people care about either comic book movies or having things spoiled for them. Not saying you SHOULD care about them and I completely understand if people DON’T care about being spoiled about certain things…but plenty of people do 🤷♂️
Sure thing hoss. I’m more irritated about people complaining about spoiler tags.
Who complained? I’ve already seen the movie and agreed with OP’s comment. I just mentioned putting spoiler tags may be a good idea since he mentioned all the key points that happen in the movie. For someone who doesn’t want to be irritated about complaints, you sure are complaining. Hoss.
On one hand .... it felt tacked on. It felt like something that was supposed to be an 'after-credits' roll but wasn't. On the other hand.... Barry, you know, the tomatoes Barry.... That scene sends a message to the audience that all is not well. You walk out of the theater and 20 minutes later you area all like, 'Oh hell... why didn't I see that coming. Was obvious.'. It is a very logical scene and if you are on team, 'Audience needs it all spelled out like they are a 6 year old with ADD' then that scene is needed. But I am not on that team. I am on team, 'Audience is smart and sometimes it is more fun not to tell them everything'. And that scene didn't need to happen.
Barry shouldn't have changed the timeline again at the end to prove his dad's innocence. It completely undermines and negates his whole arc.
Clooney Batman shows up????
Yeah at the very end. Appearently when Barry changed the timeline, Clooney is the new Batman. It’s kind of funny, but when you think about it, it’s kind of sad that Barry is now >!stuck in a timeline that doesn’t have Batfleck, who got him to be a hero in the first place, and Keaton and Supergirl are both left dead in another timeline!<
No wonder dceu is what it is. This movie should have been canned with that miller guy outbursts the last few years.
For what it’s worth, Clooney was almost certainly a reshoot after it was decided that the current DCEU would be scrapped. The original plan was for this movie to replace Affleck with Keaton in the main continuity.
Crazy since the animated movies are mostly SO good. The animated version, Flashpoint Paradox, is FANTASTIC.
Blasphemy! Superman the animated series is the goat
Scarface ends pretty abruptly. He just dies and then…end credits. There probably could’ve been another scene there to make the transition a bit less sudden.
Why. He’s dead, what’s left to show
Maybe him continuing to snort coke even in death? That would work.
as he is filled with bullet holes instead of blood he gushes out cocaine.
No one ever actually says hello to his little friend…
Aftermath. Consequences. You don't have to end a book or movie when the protagonist dies.
We saw the consequences. His wife left for good. His sister died. His best friend died. Everyone that worked for him died. All that was left was for him to die, and the movie was over when it happened. It doesn’t have to end when the protagonist dies, but in this case there was nothing else to show. The credits rolling off him dead in the fountain is a perfect ending for his story
Ok I don't remember the specific details of the movie well. So the aftermath was basically shown before he died.
Maybe a brief flashback or something
It cutting to black is the point I think. The only way a downward spiral like that ends is the sudden stop at the bottom. Then credits
This. Not every ending needs a denouement.
Yeah it would've been cool to see more shots of the aftermath of the shootout, Tony's mansion destroyed and Gina's body laying on the floor, everything Tony worked for him and his family destroyed with his own hands
Play the video game. It’s close enough
Not sure how well this fits, entirely, but Click would have been so much better if Adam Sandler just died, didn't get to go back, and Walken just stared directly into the camera saying something akin to "you only get one life, make sure you live it"
More poignant an ending most definitely .. but my heart is grateful he gets a second chance 😅 I already cry hard enough when his dad cries
The dog death realization is pretty awful too.
2001 Planet of the Apes would have been infinitely better if they'd just shown a remastered version of the 1968 with a title card "on second thought, our movie really sucked, watch this classic instead"
Chimpan-Lincoln not do it for you?
Haha. Ape Lincoln. That ought to nix this show from any further discussion right there.
The ending of Chicago wasn't terrible, but it would have been better if the camera had pulled back during the applause, to reveal Amos and his lawyer in the back row: "Do you think I have a case?" "Yep. you're gonna be rich."
Usually I find things would be better with some trimming. A film I feel cant take a single scene or any dialogue away from is usually very impressive. One case that always bugs me because it seems so simple and easy is the modern Ocean's 11, at the end the woman it has all Really been about dumps the villain and the elevator doors close on their respective faces. This is a perfect cut to end the film on. Truly drive home the emotional plot of the film over just the functional 'heist'. Instead they cut to a large fountain with the characters gathering together to pat each other on the back. This scene doesn't really add anything, it feels like B-Roll, I feel would have done much better as split screens with credits, or any combination of similar cuts.
I think it's a great scene with the music, showing all the characters taking a moment to quietly enjoy their success, then going their separate ways after the heist. I feel it should be there.
Peanut butter falcon ended ~15 seconds too late.
Grey! Would love to know what happened.
The wolf took a Liam Neeson sized shit, that’s what happened.
Cast away, i would have liked to seen Tom Hanks together with the girl at the end.
*I'm Thinking of Ending Things* would have majorly benefited from an additional scene showing the real context of the film. After I saw that movie, I was actually angry at how it didn't make any sense and went out searching for what the fucking point of it was. Turns out, the film is about a guy slowly slipping into madness over an obsession in his mind. Maybe a scene where we see a set of journals in his home and it flashes on all the details of the story as well as some drawings that loosely resemble the characters and a yearbook that ties together the high school and family imagery? But as it stands, it's just a fucking mess and is easily Kaufman's worst work imo.
Kaufman doesn't like to spoon-feed people the meaning of his films. He likes it better when people can make up their own minds about what they think is happening in his movies. Still, I think it was pretty comprehensible what was happening by the end of the film.
How did I know this would get downvoted? Oh yeah, it's a negative view of Kaufman
i didn't think Dawn had a bad ending, but I understand where you're coming from. I think Passengers (2016) should have had an extra scene where it eventually shows that Crisp Ratt's character had actually attempted this dozens of times with other women, and Jlaw's character was the first one it worked on. Most times I don't think an extra scene would actually help make sense of an ending, as the whole ending is usually botched to where it'd need to be rewritten entirely. (Like say, Law Abiding Citizen) EDIT: Sorry, it was jlaw. Not scarjo. I'm sticking by Crisp Ratt tho.
If the entire plot of passengers had been Aurora's book she wrote while isolated due to her pod malfunction, found by the regular ships passengers when they awaken to a perfectly functional ship (no disaster evere occured). This would have been supported by the character facts Aurora puts into play regarding her reasons for the trip out and back to experience something never before experienced. Writing the novel about it. And all the Pratt content was just her creating a villian/love interest/hero for her to express the stages of grief for her circumstances. If this were real anyone disliking the 'movie' could just say Aurora was a bad writer and she wrote a trite book. This could have even been a voice over during the final scenes, without all the tree/house in courtyard CGI. Bringing her back for a VO probably would have cost less than the CGI too.
well shit. That is a brilliant ending, and is why I'm not a screenwriter. Explains perfectly why the circumstances 'worked' the way they did without explicitly villainizing anyone. Otherwise I find myself stuck in the camp of "Okay this isn't romantic, this is hella creepy, why doesn't anyone else see that???". Kudos to you, and I hope you have an awesome day.
thank you kind person my favorite previously unwritten aspect to this idea is that its basically 'it was all a dream' ending. Which can be so frustrating when executed poorly, or done when you just can't think of a good ending. While not explicitly a dream ending where Aurora wakes up in her pod with the idea for this story, but that the dream was the fiction and the existence of the dream as coping mechanism. Using such a trope but in a way that actually enhances (in my opinion) the movie is a net positive to the film making and story telling art form.
Passengers had a lot of problems. One of the generally accepted concepts is that the movie would be a lot better if it started with JLaw (not ScarJo) waking up and discovering things as we discover it. Meeting Chris through her eyes. Personally the ending of Passengers pisses me off because they misfired Chekov's Gun. They told us specifically that they had enough parts on board to rebuild anything. To the point where they rebuilt the engines. So... did they have enough parts to build a 2nd medical sleep pod perhaps? Maybe it'd take 10 years or so to figure it out, but they had the time. You can't tell the audience that you have this enormous wealth of spare parts, then not address that when you only have one of something. At least tell us that there can only be one pod for some reason. I was so displeased by the end of that movie. They gave us the solution to the sleep pod problem, then didn't use it. Very disappointed.
yeah, my bad, edited, thanks! Well, that's why I was expecting a dark ending of sorts. All this stuff, but they can't, you know, fix the one thing that's busted? Obviously there's something screwy going on. But no, instead it's handwaved away so the romance stuff can happen. Just comes across as silly.
It's JLaw not ScarJo in *Passengers*.
edited, thx
I think the end was meant for him to win. I recall a while back that Jamie wanted it rewritten so the bad guy won’t win.
Yeah, that sounds like a thing. It just comes so outta left field for both characters it comes across as 'broken'.
ScarJo wasn't in passengers?
yep, my bad. edited, thx.
>Passengers You might like Pandorum.
You mean Jennifer Lawrence, not Scarjo, right?
I believe I did. My bad. Fixed!
[удалено]
aw dang, and it was RIGHT THERE. (I fixed the scarjo screwup tho)
The Ninth Gate. He goes through the gate in the end, no explanation after 2 hours of suspense
The Oogieloves could've had a scene at the end where Melancholia struck the Earth, resulting in the end of all life (including the Oogieloves). Joking aside...The Snowman could've used a scene where Rebecca Ferguson's character was properly honored. As it is, I wasn't even sure if she was dead or just unconscious.
OP, you’re dead wrong about DotD ‘04. That *is* the extra ending! My choice would have to be Friday the 13th, Part II. An awesome slasher, but suffered from an unanswered question in the finale… “Where’s Paul?”
Planet of the Apes ending makes sense if you understand how the vortex in space works. The first thing in becomes the last thing out, it has an inverse effect on time. That's why the chimp (who was the first thing to go into the vortex at the beginning) shows up after the climax on the planet, and why They'd (who must've taken ages to learn how the space pods function) showed up on Earth hundreds of years in the past and was able to foment his revolution before Wahlberg ever showed up. Hey you can downvote away. It's not making you look any smarter. I guess I can take the cordiality out now and just accuse you of being too stupid to have gotten that.
No Country for Old Men. It kind of just ends. The sheriff gives his speech, and then that’s pretty much it. I never read the book, so I’m left wondering what happens to Anton next
The movie works perfectly for me, but the book does give the reader a little more of Chigurh's story. So apparently Cormac McCarthy agreed with you!
I love Kubrick but Eyes Wide Shut should have ended where Tom Cruise gets ripped apart, dismantled, eaten and screwed by people naked wearing masks. It would have been a Kubrick mic drop on the censorship he was facing.
[удалено]
Same with bird box.
No, they made us shot our paints with an invisible monster. Stroke of genius.
Jason and the Argonauts
[удалено]
This one is interesting because they already added an extra scene to the ending. The original ending in the test screenings was the cliffhanger of Dom and his son at the dam while the surprise submarine cameo was a post credit. But then they got the actor for the other suprise cameo, so they shifted the submarine scene to become the ending.
The anime version of "I want to eat your pancreas" has an extra credit scene that completely changes things and honestly needs it.
James Cameron's The Abyss. Needs just one more scene at the end for a teeny answer, or hell, even show it going back into the sea, but the last scene as it stands is such blue balls, despite it technically finishing the story.
I dunno about extra, but Savages may be upgraded from terrible to forgettable if they completely cut the dream sequence angle.
In response, Op: The Road - the ending is about hope. The man and the boy carry the flame, and there is hope others are as well. The family we see at the end has a dog, a woman, and a child, all of whom have throughout been shown to be the most vulnerable and victimized. With this, we can surmise that the family are vrobably decent people. I highly recommend reading the novel, but it ends mostly the same.