Why Do Great Movies Have Crappy Endings?'

I don’t know Why a great movie should have a crappy ending unless the screenwriter miscalculated. Honestly, the best place to start with a story is the end. Why would you start writing a script if you didn’t have a great ending already in mind?

 

I admit too, I'm not a fully in depth person with movies, unlike music, so for a simplistic person
like me, I seem to enjoy films with a great start, great story and a great end.
i'll think of some more with 'shoddy' endings in my opinion, but I usually get rid of those films as I know
i'll never watch them again ha!
I do enjoy a good cliff hanger, but when a movie ends with a 'huh'? and when I google what I don't
understand about it, and others are equally mystified, that's when I think, 'why????'.

 

Crap happens. In the case of Total Recall, the original short story had to be vastly fleshed out and expanded in order to turn it into a 2-hour movie. New characters were invented, whole new scenes, villains, tons of stuff. The ending kind of went crazy and was completely created out of whole cloth, and didn't make a lot of sense. Ron Shusett, Dan O'Bannon, and the others threw together a temporary ending just to get the script sold and interest Schwarzenegger into getting on board. They had hoped to have the time to come up with a better ending, but when Carolco rushed it into production, it kind of went south real fast.

It's not unusual for some scripts to take 2, 3, 4 years or more to write (and to be rewritten), and it's a case of "when they're ready, they're ready." If you rush the process, bad things can happen, like forcing a meal to be done by cooking it faster... which generally doesn't work well.

About 16-17 years ago, I worked on the Oscar-nominated film The Cider House Rules, and producer Richard Gladstein told me that it had taken him and author John Irving many years to figure out how to take the novel -- which takes place over several decades in the lives of dozens of characters -- and simplify and compress it and yet retain the same overall emotional themes and plot but as a 2-hour film. They ultimately came up with the idea of the film being "a year in the life" of the central character, characterized by showing the seasons come and go. The film was nominated for five Oscars and won two, so it did very well. But you can't rush good writing.

 

I think what OP is saying is he doesn’t like endings that are open ended, movies that let the viewer decide What happens. Most times I like them.

 

The Thing is one of my top 3 movies and the ending is open ended but perfect. You sound like you want everything resolved in the final act and it all wrapped up neatly. I think it's sad you can't appreciate a more open-ended ending. In real life things are not always wrapped up neatly and I think the open-ended thing works for some movies as it leaves it up to the viewer to guess where it would go. Carpenter famously doesn't like doing sequels so I don't think he did that to set up one.

You are not in the wrong as many people like a resolution but you must appreciate it doesn't bother many of us at all. Another of my top 3 is Taxi Driver and that ends with a bit of ambiguity.

 

I understand the desire for conflict resolution. This does make for a neat package to end with. Often, however, having an arbitrary ending is much better than giving a full, complete, conclusion. "The Thing" is a great example of the arbitrary ending. The thing began by uncovering an unknown in the ice. The creature quickly wreaked havoc in an almost uncontrollable manner, and to every living thing within reach. As the story unfolds you are given some questionable evidence that MacReady may be compromised.
As things unfold it appears the creature may understand it is still not getting out of there...at least not yet.
The ending leaves the viewer wondering a few things. Did MacReady get taken by the creature? Did they kill the creature. Will everyone die? If the creature was discovered in the ice after who knows how long, and it is now frozen again..it is really dead? This is not a neat and tidy ending, but it is a good ending to a movie based on the unknown.

 

Fact: Crappy movies have crappy endings.

 

Most times, I despise those types of 'endings'. If you have a story to tell, then tell it. Don't wimp out by not having a stand. I hate that sort of laziness. Only rarely does that kind of ending work (for me).

 

Interesting. Life, itself, is always open ended.

 

What's that got to do with storytelling? In any case, life most definitely is not open ended, but always finite.

 

I'm glad you're so sure of that.

 

Of course I am, why wouldn't I be? I really don't know what you're getting at.

 

There's a button I've been meaning to push.

 

I would argue that Total Recall has a great third act and a great ending. It is well set up by what precedes it and yet retains some ambiguity.

I know it had script problems and a long development process, but I think the end product holds up. The final film is very, very close to the final draft of the script.

Did it really get mixed reviews? My recollection is that it was well received, and the guilds all liked it too. Maltin's book has called it "riveting" since the 1991 edition.

Full disclosure: it's one of my favorite movies.

 

Push whatever button you want if you can't handle reasonable debate.

Yeah, I don't have a negative recollection of that movie at all. I mean sure, it is a product of its time, but I don't recall the third act being particularly bad. I still like it a lot.

 

I just did. Thanks.

 

Toodledoo!

 

I recall some people I know liking everything about The French Connection but the ending. “What happened?” they asked.

 

From a certain point of view. We all die, but there are many ways to die and many ways to get there. Then there are the ramifications of our death to others.

 

Exactly. Unfortunately, some directors and producers don't understand this and, if the original writer can't give them what they want in the time frame they want, they bring in another writer. The result can be a mess (Prometheus) or can work IF the director understands the way to weave together different scripts to create a whole cloth. Often times that's also why another writer can be brought in to essential work on connective tissue between very different drafts but many times those patchwork scripts just don't work.

 

Actually the ending of The Thing makes it pretty clear that Mac isn't the creature but he isn't so sure about Childs. The original ending that Carpenter and Lancaster considered was that Mac gave Childs not liquor but kerosene with the creature not realizing the difference between the two as a means to poison it or burn it (I can't recall which). Now there may be some doubt about Mac earlier but he makes it pretty clear that he isn't the creature. Some folks may have lingering doubts but WHY would the creature try and blow up the camp and set fire to it as a means to kill it if, in fact, he was the creature? It appeared for all intents and purposes at the end that he was the last person standing until Childs shows up. Nevertheless, it's entirely possible that he could have been infected but there's no hint of that at all however Mac isn't so sure about Childs hence his comment "maybe we shouldn't make it".

 

Thankfully REAL GENIUS (1985) has an excellent ending

 

That's not how writing works. Having an ending in mind and then essentially writing backward to get to that ending can make for a contrived story, created strictly for the ending. I think it's far more common for the first two thirds to come more naturally. Resolution in storytelling is difficult, because many writers are discovering what the story means as they write it, or at least as they outline it, and this takes time.

 

interesting perspectives, I guess I like my movies like my music.
start, middle, bridge or a twist, and an ending.
now to define a film that has all that would be 'the shawshank redemption'
it's just how I roll.