Discussion in 'Movies & Television' started by Quadman2, Jun 11, 2017.
I saw the movie "Clue" and it had 3 different endings. What a rip-off!
I only prefer the 'up in the air' type of ending if they actually make a sequel.
The best ones stand alone, and actually end.
Wasn't it "Blazing Saddles" that had at least FOUR comic endings? I kinda remember that it ended several different ways?
I hate the "This is episode one of the franchise so we will leave you hanging" endings, though it seems to have worked for James Bond! One thing I like about European movies is that a sad movie will not have a happy ending tacked on. It makes them more lifelike.
The arts are supposed to reflect life, right?
I like endings that have you discussing the movie with others. Movies with endings like The Sixth Sense, The Matrix, The Prestige etc come to mind. I hate the "slasher" movies where the bad guy is sliced and diced and dropped 20 floors onto concrete-then the body just disappears.
Thanks G, for the terrific share on these alternate endings.
Will only comment on the one with Close in it. and I do agree with her. Alex's mental makeup as presented was spot on with her taking her life as it fit her psych profile to a tee.
The ending should match the overall tone of the movie. No Country for Old Men is a great movie, and the end had the Sheriff retired and getting used to retirement. Anton? I was wondering if he would be caught, hurt and all, and end up in prison. That movie is far more different than most movies. It didn't even have a musical sound track. that method kept you really focused on the story, even the non speaking parts.
By far, the vast majority of TV series have gone the "slasher" route. Guess actors don't have to learn lines, and writers don't have to come up with valid stuff, and not too much has to go into production. Just "slice and dice" and let the blood spray! Sick!
Surprise endings as in To Live and Die in LA are always appreciated.
One other, The Graduate. Best example of dog catches car ending ever in film -
I like to be surprised by the ending and with something you had not considered during the film. The two above immediately came to mind because they were both cruising towards a conclusion you thought you understood. Then the director changes it up and the film ends. For me at least ones those are memorable and enjoyable.
One other, The Rover w/ Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson. This is a rough post-apocalyptic and dystopian film; not without flaw. There are no good guys in the film although Pattinson comes close and shocked the heck out of me, he can actually act. But the ending and main character motivations do not play to your expectations.
yeah, real Mind-Fork movie endings are fun now and then ... IF IT WORKS!
If its a farce- funny endings are best.
Otherwise - realistic is best, even if its sad ...
Looks like a cool movie with some depth to it. Will look for a synopsis for it.
If I wanted "real" I wouldn't be watching a movie. It's supposed to be entertainment. I want a happy ending. (Double entendre not intended.)
Just saw another thread in this forum bout "Space Odyssey 2001" and had a flashback on how it ended...as it left me really confused.
Have heard you have to read the book this movie is based on to truly comprehend the different events/objects in the film. Many regard this movie an "icebreaker" due to the early year (1968) of its release and how it opened up new fields of thought in it.
Anyways, just thought to add perhaps another way to end a movie...confusion.
There's a thread devoted to "2001: a Space Odyssey" in http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/2001-a-space-odyssey.750631/
The idea is there may be a "induced evolution" mechanism going on, that is, natural evolution may be disrupted at particular moments by the intervention of some more evolved entity(ies) that induces a "jump", a discontinuous stage of evolution on other less evolved biological entities, such as the human species. The appearance of the monolith (a sort of monitor from these entities) is signaling those discontinuous jumps. The "final" stage of evolution pertains to non-material forms of life, beings that are pure thought and pure energy and are not localized in space or time (today one may call these "quantum" entities). From this point of view, evolution is not totally free and there is some superior entity ("good" aliens, spirits, God, etc) that is willing to help humankind to travel the long road towards "perfection". So, the ending of the film shows the first human being (David Bowman) that is able to cross the border and become one of these more advanced and non-material entities. A reworking of the Hell to Paradise path paradigm. At least, IMHO!
Thank's G for the brief synopsis and the share of the main theme.
Interesting concept in our world of "free will", eh? Maybe not that free after all...just free in spurts of time. In the same way of thinking maybe that asteroid that hit earth wasn't a chance situation. Another thread for a different time.
Wish Darwin had been able to take this movie in after reading the book. Sagan probable did. Even Hawking would have a POV on this film and its ending.
Even Physics is familiar to this idea: the kinetic theory of gases, developed in the XVIIth and XIXth centuries, proposed the idea that diluted gases have free moving molecules that once in a while have collisions, but most of the time they move freely, with no interactions.
BTW, please don't consider my thoughts on 2001 as something developed: Clarke and Kubrick interacted strongly while writing the script for the film, which is in part based on Clarke's short story The Sentinel (and even less in his novel Childhood's End). Clarke wrote the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey during his interaction with Kubrick and so the film may be consider as a twin from the novel and not its descendant.
Separate names with a comma.