Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2010 21:36:53 GMT -5
Isn't criticizing the ending of Skyline like analyzing the writing of a Sci-Fi Channel movie? No.
|
|
|
Post by Evilution E5150 on Dec 29, 2010 21:43:36 GMT -5
this thread is pretty much the discussion me and my girlfriend had this morning after watching Inception again on tuesday
it just comes across as lazy story telling me me, if your gonna give us a movie then give us the whole thing, dont just leave the end off
|
|
|
Post by KingPopper on Dec 29, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
Do we really need to see Randy die in the ring? The top spinned long enough to say it was a dream. I mean two movies that's it. What gets me is cookie cutter endings for every movie. Where everyone looks like their about to get married to the hot female co-star and the world is on it's way to peace because of the events in the movie. That's what gets me.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,403
|
Post by mattperiolat on Dec 30, 2010 2:36:46 GMT -5
Don't get the hatred of POTC 2, honestly. I loved that movie and it's my fav. of the lot, bonus points for the reveal at the end to set up 3. Problem is 3 was a mess of a movie, which hurt whatever they were trying to say.
But I digress. The subject is open endings. I haven't seen Inception or The Wrestler, so I'm not qualified to address those particular movies. For me, I don't mind an open ending so long as it IS, in fact, a clear ending to the story. Hate to use the example here, but I'd point to Titanic as a good good example: we know the story ends, but it is up to the watcher if Rose is dreaming or has died at the end.
Best I can contribute folks.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Dec 30, 2010 3:00:18 GMT -5
To me, Inception and The Wrestler did it right, as did The Thing (Carpenter's version) and the 70s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But yes, there are many others that use open endings and mess it up.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 30, 2010 4:22:41 GMT -5
Don't get the hatred of POTC 2, honestly. I loved that movie and it's my fav. I didn't hate it. I liked it a lot. I was just kind of like "wha? That's it?" at the end. I mean, it felt like there was going to be this hugs battle to end the movie and then... nope, it'll be in the next one. It felt like they pulled a Halo 2 on us.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf Hawkfield no1 NZ poster on Dec 30, 2010 4:34:08 GMT -5
I do agree with the OP to a certain point however what really pisses me off with open endings is when one is used and months later in a interview the director will state what the ending really meant.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,403
|
Post by mattperiolat on Dec 30, 2010 4:39:51 GMT -5
Don't get the hatred of POTC 2, honestly. I loved that movie and it's my fav. I didn't hate it. I liked it a lot. I was just kind of like "wha? That's it?" at the end. I mean, it felt like there was going to be this hugs battle to end the movie and then... nope, it'll be in the next one. It felt like they pulled a Halo 2 on us. OK, let me see if I can follow you here.. Jack and his crew got to the island, found the chest with Davy Jones's heart in it, fought all over the island to claim it, escaped Davy Jones and his crew to get back to the Pearl, fought off the Kraken TWICE, Jack is left behind to fight the Kraken while everyone else flees... *deep breath* And you think there was something MISSING from all that? Just giving you a hard time, they had to leave us with some hanging threads for 3, I'm just sorry so much of the spotlight in 3 got taken off Jones, who carried so much of 2.
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Dec 30, 2010 6:17:46 GMT -5
Wait...was "Triangle" that abominable time-loop related movie? Yup. The idea was cool, but the execution awful. And naturally, it ended without achieving anything as the time loop, which was supposed to be broken, started happening AGAIN for no reason whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 31, 2010 0:13:26 GMT -5
You know one that really, really pissed me off?
There was an episode of Law and Order... SVU I think. They made the investigation really ambiguous. It was a general "He said consensual, she said rape" thing, but there was a lot on both sides that could be interpreted as good for one side or the other (If I recall correctly, he was a professor who had relationships with students before, she was unhinged and had had meltdowns before, as well as accusing the detective of stuff part way through the episode).
So they get near the end of the episode and it essentially goes like...
Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict? Foreman: Yes, you're honor. Judge: What is your verdict? Foreman: We find the defendant....
*black screen*
And it was so freaking infuriating, because regardless of who you agreed with on that side, in a show about court proceedings to cut out the verdict is just cheap and inexcusable.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,353
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 31, 2010 0:37:37 GMT -5
Some of your examples are completely ridiculous. My point was that it was overused. You claimed I couldn't name at least 20 directors who used it in the past decade, and I did. I don't care how "ridiculous" they are, my point stands: it's way too f'n overused. I never said the opposite. And it doesn't contradict my point that it's being overused. and "it doesn't matter" is an excuse I've heard way too many times to justify lazy writing. Okay, okay, I'll admit that one wasn't a really fair pick. It still used that gimmick. And considering the first movie did have some kind of ending, it's not like you came in expecting it to not have any ending at all. It's not like The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter where you pretty much know you won't get the whole story by the end (and even then both of these franchises had more satisfying endings for each of their respective installments). Pirates just sort of stops midway through the action. Again, it's supposed to be a historical movie. The mere idea of ending the movie without showing the end of the events is ludicrous. It's like if Titanic (which wasn't even aiming for accuracy to begin with) ended after the boat crashed into the iceberg. Oh sure, we know the boat sinks and a bunch of people die in the end, but it's still a stupid idea. Again, how does that nullify my point that the gimmick is overused? Besides, would it really have hurt the movie that much to make it more explicit if the characters survived or not? If the attack on the monster was a success? Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie, but considering they spend 20 freaking minutes establishing that the main characters are, in fact, the main characters before the first glimpse of the monster, you'd think the ending would be more... detailed. Not to mention it's supposed to be footage confiscated by the military How so? My point is that too many movies use the open ending thing, and I just gave examples of a bunch of movies that use it, thus proving my point. As far as these endings being great... let's just say art is subjective. No offense, but if you polled every single movie made over any period of time you will find every gimmick is overused. There are just too many movies made to expect that none of them will share any characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 31, 2010 0:40:24 GMT -5
I disagree; yeah it CAN be lazy writing et al when it's done badly, but for something like Inception where it's done really well allowing for you to choose your own interpretation? Top notch.
|
|
darthalexander
Hank Scorpio
I have a feeling I may end up getting banned soon.
Posts: 7,030
|
Post by darthalexander on Dec 31, 2010 0:41:34 GMT -5
I bet you cant name twenty from the past decade. Robert Zemeckis (Cast Away) The ending of Cast Away is given throughout the film (in a subtle way): {Spoiler}The last package that he delivers is a piece for the sign she has on her farm. He's an Elvis fan, she's an Elvis fan (mentioned earlier in the film) so that's one of their connections and the others being they are both single and he kept her package all that time and finally delivered it - a huge opening for a date if there ever was one. The film doesn't directly come out and say it, but that's where it is leading. The ending of The Wrestler is pretty obvious if you pay attention to it. (Not trying to sound like a smartass but it's right there in front of you). No Country For Old Men has an ending - a subtle one, but it's there. I don't mind open endings. I don't need everything explained to me like I was a little kid. (Once again, not trying to sound snarky - just my opinion). Sometimes it is annoying, but overall it's not that bad. I'd take an open ending over a cookie-cutter ending anytime.
|
|
Maniac Mitch
Mephisto
Mary Droppins? ...well I thought it was funny
Posts: 669
|
Post by Maniac Mitch on Dec 31, 2010 2:02:03 GMT -5
To me, Inception and The Wrestler did it right, as did The Thing (Carpenter's version) and the 70s version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But yes, there are many others that use open endings and mess it up. Yeah, those were some of the better uses. It can get overused, but so can any storytelling device. I love the arguement that Christopher Nolan didn't finish his film because he ended it without a clear result. That's the way he intended it to be. The whole movie is supposed to be something to be discussed and thought about long after you have left the theatre(a rare feat with todays ADD movie going crowd). If he had spelled out everything it would have diluted that effect. The Wrestler I felt the same way about. The part my friends and I talked about most was the ending. As a wrestling fan who has seen many of my heros die very young I personally felt that Ram was a tragic hero and thus his ending had to reflect that. But my friend who is not a huge wrestling fan saw it as the underdog story of him taking one last hurrah before retiring The Ram, in favour of a normal life. That's the marvelous thing about art. Two people can get two totally different views of a film by simply cutting out at the right moment. When open endings are done well, they can make you think about the movie long after the credits have rolled. The listing of Cast Away as an open ending is especially puzzling to me. The only abiguous part is where Hanks character decides to go. But that really has no bearing on any storyline business left unfinished. He made it off the island. Everything after that was a denouement just tying up lose ends of the story. I don't know or care where he goes, how he gets there, or who he talks to along the way because the story is over. He's alive, he's at piece with having to move on with his life, and that's all I need to know. If he had been floating in the water and then the film cut to black, then you'd have a case. POTC 2 was a pretty definative ending. I think people are confusing a cliffhanger with an open ending(or as mentioned previously, a bad ending). Cliffhanger is an ending that still leaves unanswered questions in order to build up a desire to see the next installment(it's also a surprisingly decent Stallone flick). The open ending is where the final outcome is left deliberately unanswered in order to let the audience interpret. POTC 2 was most definately a cliffhanger. I guess it all comes down to a matter of taste. I personally loved Inception's ending even though I heard some people in the theater angry that Nolan left it that way. It's given me something to go back and forth on in my head even upon repeated viewings. That's a rare feat indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Shelley on Dec 31, 2010 2:12:19 GMT -5
You know one that really, really pissed me off? There was an episode of Law and Order... SVU I think. They made the investigation really ambiguous. It was a general "He said consensual, she said rape" thing, but there was a lot on both sides that could be interpreted as good for one side or the other (If I recall correctly, he was a professor who had relationships with students before, she was unhinged and had had meltdowns before, as well as accusing the detective of stuff part way through the episode). So they get near the end of the episode and it essentially goes like... Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict? Foreman: Yes, you're honor. Judge: What is your verdict? Foreman: We find the defendant.... *black screen* And it was so freaking infuriating, because regardless of who you agreed with on that side, in a show about court proceedings to cut out the verdict is just cheap and inexcusable. I. f***ING. HATE. THAT. EPISODE.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 31, 2010 2:21:54 GMT -5
who is to say that the directors/writers have to provide a "real" ending? Part of telling a story is not only what you include but also what you omit. And besides, having every story go along the same narrative path of beginning, rising action, climax, falling action, resolution that we learned early in schooling would get extremely boring.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Dec 31, 2010 3:07:19 GMT -5
Regarding THE WRESTLER: {Spoiler}Someone on these forums remarked when the film was still in its theatrical run that Randy dying would actually be a better ending for him. The idea was that he didn't know how to live a normal life, and always managed to ruin his relationships with others. His stripper/girlfriend/whatever was watching his match, but left before it finished. So, like, there was no one waiting for him after the match was over. And after that last moment of wrestling glory, he would go back to his normal life and be alone until he eventually did die. I probably mangled that original point with my paraphrasing, and to whoever originally made the point, I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 31, 2010 9:36:32 GMT -5
You know one that really, really pissed me off? There was an episode of Law and Order... SVU I think. They made the investigation really ambiguous. It was a general "He said consensual, she said rape" thing, but there was a lot on both sides that could be interpreted as good for one side or the other (If I recall correctly, he was a professor who had relationships with students before, she was unhinged and had had meltdowns before, as well as accusing the detective of stuff part way through the episode). So they get near the end of the episode and it essentially goes like... Judge: Has the jury reached a verdict? Foreman: Yes, you're honor. Judge: What is your verdict? Foreman: We find the defendant.... *black screen* And it was so freaking infuriating, because regardless of who you agreed with on that side, in a show about court proceedings to cut out the verdict is just cheap and inexcusable. I. f***ING. HATE. THAT. EPISODE. Thank God I'm not the only one. NOt only does it try cheap methods of getting you emotionally attached, it doesn't have the common courtesy to give you a real ending. Whoever wrote and directed it can go kiss off.
|
|
Brain Of F'n J
Hank Scorpio
Not that cool enough to have one of these....wait.
We Discodians must stick apart.
Posts: 6,890
|
Post by Brain Of F'n J on Dec 31, 2010 10:21:37 GMT -5
To everyone who's complaining about open endings, I have two words for you:
GROW UP.
Do you, in life, ALWAYS get all the answers? Is everything tied up in a neat little box with a bow? No. Why can't a director use artistic license to do something that's more reflective of life? Or, hey, just end a movie in an unconventional way? Are you so afraid of thinking, contemplating the ending, filling in the blanks yourself? It's not a cheap way out, and it's not lazy writing; it's making art interactive, making the audience part of the story rather than passive observers. Really, people ... show some initiative and imagination.
Jed Shaffer ~And people wonder why this country's culture is the laughing stock of the planet ...
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 31, 2010 11:33:19 GMT -5
To everyone who's complaining about open endings, I have two words for you: GROW UP. Do you, in life, ALWAYS get all the answers? Is everything tied up in a neat little box with a bow? No. Why can't a director use artistic license to do something that's more reflective of life? Or, hey, just end a movie in an unconventional way? Are you so afraid of thinking, contemplating the ending, filling in the blanks yourself? It's not a cheap way out, and it's not lazy writing; it's making art interactive, making the audience part of the story rather than passive observers. Really, people ... show some initiative and imagination. You can think about closed endings too, champ. Frankly, it's not very unconventional if it's so overused that it becomes a trope. Open endings, like twist endings, have so often become used as crutches to the point where storytellers feel they dont' have to come up with a real ending because an open one is so much "artsier" and more "sophisticated." Oh, yeah, but it's all because we just haven't grown up that we appreciate stories that have well-crafted endings. And, frankly, it's easier to ask the audience what they think happens instead of ending a gripping story yourself and having to field all the complaints about how the writer totally got the ending wrong. Jed Shaffer ~And people wonder why this country's culture is the laughing stock of the planet ... Hah, seriously? Is that what you're going with? How dare we! I mean, all the great works of literature and art had open endings! Like Citizen Kane! We never learned what rosebu... oh, right. Well, Casablanca! We never did get a soli... oh, never mind. Well, what about books, surely the greatest stories gave us open endings! We never got a definitive ending from Shakespea... wait, we did on all of them. Well, Crime and punish... no, can't use that either. Well, Ernest Hemingway, one of the greatest American writers, surely he gave us open end... nope, he finished his stories off too... Hmm... Moby Dick? Nope, solid ending. John Steinback? Pretty definitive endings. Well, damn, they all must have been unimaginative sods if they finished their stories off! Where's the artistry and imagination in a well-crafted ending? What do you think?
|
|