How ya like yer movie endings?

[SGrayWolf]

There's the question, heh. Like cliffhangers? happy endings? Etc? Answer as general or as specific as you wish. Didn't remember seeing this question asked or answered anywhere so figured I'd throw it out to the masses since it's been a tad quiet hehe... No fighting over "first dibs" on this question! *backs away*

[Figarou]

I like endings that gives you a clue to a sequel.

[Terastas]

Well... First and foremost, the three things that I don't like:

1) Cliffhanger endings, especially in horror. When the monster's in the morgue and his eyes pop open... That was lame the first time it was done.
2) "Happilly ever after" endings where the male and female protagonist hook up and everybody's smiling and a love song plays during the credits.
3) Unless part of a series (Lord of the Rings, etc.), endings that scream "SEQUEL."

When it comes to horror movies, I generally prefer the ending to be pretty solemn; it's unrealistic to think that somebody would smile after the death of a monster that just killed half of his/her friends and family. It feels more accurate and more moving if the villain's death is brushed aside and more attention is payed to the victims. In Storm of the Century, for example, one of the final scenes shows a memorial to all of the storm victims, and I'm pretty sure there's some symbolism in the fact that the name the two actors pay the most attention to is at the bottom. There was also an alternative ending to Dreamcatcher (what is it with me and Stephen King?) on the DVD where, instead of just stepping on that last worm and cracking a grin, Henry and Jonesy pay their first visit to Duddits's grave. It might not give a bovine audience that ending feeling, but it's much more realistic considering what the movie was about.

Also, I like endings that have some sort of deeper meaning to them. For a film like 'Freeborn,' for example, the base example would somehow involve one of the werewolves saying either "We're not monsters," to a human, or "I'm only human," to a fellow werewolf.

[Howling Fan]

As for myself, I generally like twist endings like "Psycho," "The Sixth Sense," or "Fight Club." However, there is a danger of doing them wrong, like the unfortunate "The Village," which had an ending that pretty much invalidated everything that came before. Ironically, it was from the same writer/director as "The Sixth Sense," which was a beautiful film, I thought. Also, I don't think a twist ending would probably apply here. No "Oh no! He's/She's a werewolf too!" Cut to Credits. That would be pretty lame.

[Vuldari]

Closure. That is what is most important to me. Unless it is written as a chapter in a series, (as Terestas said), it should have a clear and difinitive ending. No last second cliffhangers like the villain suddennly rising from the dead, or a characters hidden identity being revealed at the end without any elaboration or explanation.

Also, I totally agree with the 'Not All Smiles' at the end opinion. I prefer Happy endings over depressing ones, (though the ending of "The sixth Sense" Was very interesting, I thought), but recognition of people and things lost along the way is really needed.

I believe that the most important part of any story is the "human" factor. The story is not about the events that take place, but instead, HOW those events effect the people who live through them. At the end of it all, if the event is significant enough to be told as a story, or made into a movie, it will have had an equally significant effect on the protagonists. If they are all Mentally, Emotionally and Physically unchanged by the experiance at the end of the story, then the entire event was completely insignificant and the whole story becomes POINTLESS. This is one of , if not THE most important rule of good story telling, in my opinion...and yet I have seen so many hollywood productions which seem to intentionally break this most sacred rule. (Do they think we cant handle a "Solemn" ending?) When no one seems to be emotionally effected by what has just transpired at the end, or even seem to remember at all that all of their best freinds just died a few hours, (or even Minutes), earlier...
WTF!

[Terastas]

Damn, I completely forgot about The Sixth Sense. Yeah, last-minute bombshells can really make a movie memorable. The only thing I would stress is that said endings or circumstances tend to work a lot better in psychological thrillers as opposed to monster horrors. It was okay to have the killer come back from the dead in Identity, for example, because he only existed on a psychological level -- it would have been highly inconsistent for him to reappear like that were he a physical being. However, when that happens in one of the Halloween movies, we tend to groan as we leave the theatre.

Something like that would be a lot harder to accomplish with a monster movie, even one like Freeborn.

BTW, anyone remember how (again with the Stephen King!) The Stand ended?

[CrewWolf]

I like endings that just make you leave the theater thinking. The good movies are the ones that state or subtly refer to some question in the beginning and then the character goes through a series of events until the ending when looking back at the events the answer to the question is made clear. Sometimes the answer can be interpreted differently by different people and sometimes the answer to the question is just another question but getting closer the answer. Problems come when a person doesn't like the answer (but hey, sometimes that can't be helped) or the question, the events, and the answer don't exactly match up or worse there is no question and there is no answer but just a string of purposeless events.
I think I also like it when the ending is compared or contrasted with the beginning somehow. The character has gone through some growth and I just like an ending that shows just how much growth.
And as to happy or sad endings, I admit I prefer happy endings or at least "not-tragic" endings in which there is some hope of something in the future.

But I swear, nothing on screen or television should end with all the characters laughing a second before the ending credits roll. I don't care how good the question and answer are, that will never, ever be excused.

[Figarou]

Sure, there is many types of endings. Most of the endings leave themselves open for a sequel. I don't mind seeing that.

But having a killer come back in every movie is getting old. The 1st "Halloween" movie was ok, But having "Jason" come back each and every time is boring!! Just use a rocket laucher and end it already!!


"The Sixth Sence" did have its surprise ending. That was the most talked about ending after the movie hit the big screen.


I've seen sad endings, happy endings, plus countless other type of endings. I don't care what type of ending a movie has. As long as it makes sence.

[Kzinistzerg]

I have to say an ending that leaves it open for a sequel without actally holding up a gaint "sequel" sign. it has to answer almost all of the questions, and it has to be realistic when you see it.

to use an example form a computer game, in one fo the first person shooters you save the world, this person comes to talk to you... and thats it. and you're left sitting there like, "WTF was that! " only, you use far worse words. it has to actualy close a movie. generally cliffhangers suck for this type of thing.

[Figarou]

I have to say an ending that leaves it open for a sequel without actally holding up a gaint "sequel" sign. it has to answer almost all of the questions, and it has to be realistic when you see it.

to use an example form a computer game, in one fo the first person shooters you save the world, this person comes to talk to you... and thats it. and you're left sitting there like, "WTF was that! " only, you use far worse words. it has to actualy close a movie. generally cliffhangers suck for this type of thing.

Heh, I remember a movie that had a big "sequel sign."

Back to the Future When the movie ended, it said..."To be continued"

Then after the 2nd movie.."To be Concluded"

[Silverclaw]

I too dont like a sappy, happy endings. Like, the characters all laughing gleefully, walking/driving into a sunset. Needless to say I groaned at Jurassic Park 3. Just wrong. It worked well for the first Jurassic Park oddly though.
One thing that you notice is that a lot of movies end very abruptly(AWIL) That is really annoying. The one thing I did not like about The Return of the King was that it had like 20 different endings. Something happens, the screen goes dark momentarily, people rise in their seats, then another scene comes on. Repeat that a few more times.
I find that I enjoy watching bittersweet endings the most. But, whatever type of ending Freeborn has, It can be well made.
And I love the feeling after seeing a film, that you have just witnessed one of the best movies youve ever seen. And you will want to come back for more.

[Kzinistzerg]

*shudders* oog, my german teacher was obsessed with that movie. I've learned t hate it. ugg. (the one in figariou's post)

[Terastas]

Heh, I remember a movie that had a big "sequel sign."

Back to the Future When the movie ended, it said..."To be continued"

Then after the 2nd movie.."To be Concluded"

Mm. That's one of the few instances I could tolerate it -- when it's intended to be part of a trilogy from day #1. The Matrix: Reloaded used "to be continued" too, but again, the sequel was already in production before #2 had even hit theatres.

I also don't mind if the killer/monster lives if the implication isn't that he's just going to start killing people at random again. In Silence of the Lambs, for example, Hannibal just hangs up the phone and disappears into the crowd, unlike Jason and Mike Meyers who usually restart the process with the mortician.

[Figarou]

Oh, there is one thing I hate about sequels. Waiting 5-15 years to see a sequel.

[Bete]

There's the question, heh. Like cliffhangers? happy endings? Etc? Answer as general or as specific as you wish. Didn't remember seeing this question asked or answered anywhere so figured I'd throw it out to the masses since it's been a tad quiet hehe... No fighting over "first dibs" on this question! *backs away*

I like to be surprised by endings, and I like them to be realistic. I don't like cliffhanger endings that bring you to a sequel, I think a film story needs to end somewhere for a movie, as you are paying to see some kind of story, so not to end the story and expect people to all come back in a year or two to see more of it, is goofy. I like unhappy endings and I like happy endings, lately I have been watching a lot of foreign and independent films with unhappy endings, and I find that more believeable, and I like them.

[Aki]

I like movies with closure, cliffhanger endings for movies piss me off to no end. A cliffhanger is OK for TV series, because the next day you get to see what happens next. With movies, you have to wait over a year or so most of the time. Not fun.

Both Happy and Tragic endings are fine with me, as long as their well done.

And i hate those horror movies where the monster comes back (when its one monster, its okay if its like, a race off monsters, but having one monster come back from the dead is REALLY annoying).

[Terastas]

Oh, there is one thing I hate about sequels. Waiting 5-15 years to see a sequel.

That usually happens when, way back in the day when it was made, nobody on the orginal project intended for there to be a sequel... Fast-forward to present day when Hollywood isn't willing tp spend a few extra bucks on an original concept, so we get crap sequels like Terminator 3 and Jason X.

The only thing worse? "Vs." movies! Freddy or Jason, forget who wins and asks who gives a flying crap!!

[Figarou]

Oh, there is one thing I hate about sequels. Waiting 5-15 years to see a sequel.

That usually happens when, way back in the day when it was made, nobody on the orginal project intended for there to be a sequel... Fast-forward to present day when Hollywood isn't willing tp spend a few extra bucks on an original concept, so we get crap sequels like Terminator 3 and Jason X.

The only thing worse? "Vs." movies! Freddy or Jason, forget who wins and asks who gives a flying crap!!

"Vs." movies is nothing new. You had the old B&W Wolfman Vs. Dracula and so on.

Not all sequels can be a great thing. For example. I just learned there is going to be a "Butterfly Effect 2" with all new characters. The original star, Ashton Kutcher, isn't expected to be in it.

[Terastas]

Yup. Then you had the more infamous "Godzilla vs. [name]" movies... But still, the pattern persists: there is yet to be a movie with vs. in the title that was any better than campy and corny.

Butterfly Effect 2? Damn. Well, this is that lack of originality I was talking about. If any movie even so much as makes a one dollar profit at the box offices, that's enough for Hollywood to try to cash in on a sequel.

Mark my words, when Freeborn finally hits theatres, it will be competing for ratings with Cursed II.

[Howling Fan]

Mark my words, when Freeborn finally hits theatres, it will be competing for ratings with Cursed II.

Not bloody likely, given its horrendous box office. Also, Wes Craven swore he wouldn't do anyone one, with all the trouble he had, and the story itself does not even hint at a sequel; it was just a cut-and-dry happy ending with everything resolved.

[Scott Gardener]

The cliche male and female making out at the very end is even worse when everyone else dies off! You can almost always tell who's going to survive at the end. It won't be the minority guy, nor will it be the second female, who is slightly more sexy and a little bit more sinister. The other guy who is practically the same as the lead protagonist, but whose actor doesn't get as high a billing in the opening credits, gets creamed pretty early on.

[Lycanthrope]

The cliche male and female making out at the very end is even worse when everyone else dies off! You can almost always tell who's going to survive at the end. It won't be the minority guy, nor will it be the second female, who is slightly more sexy and a little bit more sinister. The other guy who is practically the same as the lead protagonist, but whose actor doesn't get as high a billing in the opening credits, gets creamed pretty early on.

I feel the same about it. There have been a movie about some intelligent sharks (I don't remember the title) where near the end there were only three people left. Male, female and afroamerican-man. Do you know how relieved I felt when it was the woman who died?
Well that's what you call an unexpected twist of action.

[Figarou]

The cliche male and female making out at the very end is even worse when everyone else dies off! You can almost always tell who's going to survive at the end. It won't be the minority guy, nor will it be the second female, who is slightly more sexy and a little bit more sinister. The other guy who is practically the same as the lead protagonist, but whose actor doesn't get as high a billing in the opening credits, gets creamed pretty early on.

There is always a survivor in a disaster movie. I never seen one where everyone dies off. And yes, its kindof easy to spot the one that'll make it through the whole ordeal.

[Aki]

The only thing worse? "Vs." movies! Freddy or Jason, forget who wins and asks who gives a flying crap!!

Indeed, Alien Verus Predator was the most recent one i saw...

They didn't even give a clear cut winner, wussies....

Though, only one person was left, but hell, they're in anartica, they =screwed.

Everyone dies, yay.

[Terastas]

Yeah, when you can see the whole Hollywood minority cast lined up, its never a good thing. The only correction I would make is that the black guy doesn't always die, but he'll usually only live if he's played by a rapper like Ice Cube (Anaconda) or Busta Rhymes (Halloween: Resurrection). Though it's true that they are very physical-biased in how they kill them off.

The fat guy or the guy with male-pattern baldness? He never lives.
The guy with a European accent (especially British)? You betcha.'
The rich guy? Always.
The anti-social badass? NEVER!