# Annoyingly ambiguous endings **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 7, 2007, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044 "2007-01-07T11:34:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/41 "2007-01-10T14:13:09Z")
I’m going to have to dig out my 12 Monkeys DVD and refresh my memory, but endings that are in a characters head are too easy an explanation, unless its done a la Brazil. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/42 "2007-01-10T16:25:07Z")
[QUOTE=Captain\_C] Meaning that she intends to go after the biological-virus guy and stop him, and we don’t get to see this? Or meaning the cycle repeats itself? [/QUOTE] Well that is the main reason I avoid this film when it is on AMC or whatever, when I will watch Die Hard 1 over and over again. Not ONE security guard decides to detain that guy with the chemicals? “Hey you yes you you’re involved in this too, even if this Willis guy is dead, he was obviously agitated about you for some reason, so let’s see what’s in that briefcase eh?” Okay that belongs in one of the threads about huge plot holes, but it still bugs me-feels contrived. Otherwise I can grok the whole Eternal Return stuff. ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/43 "2007-01-10T16:29:16Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] John Carpenter’s 1982 version of **The Thing**. This version is closer to John Campbell’s original story, but goes beyond the short story. The story ends with the Thing subdued and the Earthmen in control of its technology. The movie version goes past this point, makes the situation hopeless (the Earthmen can’t survive for long, but can arrange so that The Thing dies), and leaves it ambiguous if The Thing gets killed or not. I don’t see the advantage. [/QUOTE] It isn’t dead, just in hibernation. MacReady should have grabbed some paper and a pen and carefully explained what happened so that whoever discovers the mess next spring doesn’t reanimate the Thing out of ignorance. And that’s before the last shot of the husky dog trotting across the snowfield which is in some versions… ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/44 "2007-01-10T16:36:51Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] Was the end of The French Connection ambiguous by anyone? [/QUOTE] Not ambiguous, but unresolved. That problem was solved by the sequel. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/45 "2007-01-10T16:59:39Z")
> [@](#): > > It isn’t dead, just in hibernation. MacReady should have grabbed some paper and a > pen and carefully explained what happened so that whoever discovers the mess > next spring doesn’t reanimate the Thing out of ignorance. > > And that’s before the last shot of the husky dog trotting across the snowfield which > is in some versions… Yer misunderstandin; – It’s not clear if the Thing is dead or not at the end. There might not even be anything to kill. Leaving a note won’t help – If there is a Thing in human form, it’ll tear it up before it hibernates. And, if found, nobody would understand or believe it. The version with the diog running at the end was fro the horribly butchered CBS version, and has nothing to do with Carpenter. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/46 "2007-01-10T17:39:14Z")
I don’t understand the need to over-complicate the ending of _Twelve Monkeys_. the future scientists, though they had time travel, didn’t believe they could avert the original plague. Their goal was to obtain an original sample of the virus (to which they and other survivors were apparently immune, else they would not have survived) which somehow would help them immunize themselves against whatever mutated version was keeping them underground. This doesn’t make a lot of sense on its face, but whatever. The woman on the plane said “I’m in insurance” as a casual introductory line to the David Morse character and as a pun to the audience; she was there to “insure” a sample was obtained. How she was going to get the sample back to the future is unclear, as is the whole time-travel plot device, but again… whatever. If the big twist was that it was all in Willis’ head, I’d be severely disappointed. It’s the laziest possible copout, or at least tied with waving a magic wand and making everything better. ---
**Author:** ![meow\_meow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f04885/32.png) [@meow\_meow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meow_meow)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/47 "2007-01-10T17:51:02Z")
[QUOTE=betenoir] But what they wanted was a sample of the virus to test, and that’s what she was there for. [/QUOTE] I guess I was totally off base about this ending. I thought that the female scientist was there on the plane in her own time before the plauge, before she became a “scientist.” I thought her old line of work was Insurance, and she was a survivor that somehow came in to a position of power. I thought the whole meeting w/ Willis was coincidence. Hmmm! ---
**Author:** ![meow\_meow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f04885/32.png) [@meow\_meow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meow_meow)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/48 "2007-01-10T17:55:16Z")
[QUOTE=meow meow] … the whole meeting w/ Willis was coincidence. [/QUOTE] I mean with the guy with the virus. My attention span seems to be disrepair. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/49 "2007-01-10T18:07:12Z")
[QUOTE=meow meow] I guess I was totally off base about this ending. I thought that the female scientist was there on the plane in her own time before the plauge, before she became a “scientist.” I thought her old line of work was Insurance, and she was a survivor that somehow came in to a position of power. I thought the whole meeting w/ Willis was coincidence. Hmmm! [/QUOTE] Well, there aren’t a lot of hard facts, but Bruce Willis was 40 when the movie was made and he appears as a child around 10 or so in the airport, so figure the time travel project starts about 30 years after the 1996 airport incident and the release of the plague. If the scientist/insurance saleswoman was “in her own time” when she meets Morse on the plane, she’d appear 30 years younger than her future self (as the adolsecsent James Cole does). Since her appearance _isn’t_ altered (or at least not enough to notice), she’s likely another time traveler, just like Willis and the two or three others he encounters. ---
**Author:** ![meow\_meow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f04885/32.png) [@meow\_meow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meow_meow)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/50 "2007-01-10T18:11:18Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] Since her appearance _isn’t_ altered (or at least not enough to notice), she’s likely another time traveler, just like Willis and the two or three others he encounters. [/QUOTE] Yes, that makes sense. When I saw it, though, I convinced myself that she looked much younger on the plane compared to her scary magnified scientist self. How interesting! I wonder if the people I saw it with “got it” and I was the only one who didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/51 "2007-01-10T18:28:47Z")
I’ve always assumed that the ending of _12 Monkeys_ indicated that Cole’s mission was successful. He gave the scientists enough information to eventually be able to pinpoint when and where the virus would be just before its release. Using that information, one of the scientists went back in time to procure a sample, or perhaps even stop the original spread-- she’s already on the plane sitting next to the guy and is aware of his plan, how hard could it be to just catch him off guard and steal the case? What sucks for Cole is that he and the other convicts were used as guinea pigs and cannon fodder until the scientists had worked out everything they needed to know, at which a scientist goes back in time to play the hero and take the credit. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/52 "2007-01-10T18:42:06Z")
I think we can all agree that _12 Monkeys_ definitely belongs in this thread. Beyond that, I don’t think the “insurance” scene can be definitively deciphered - viewers are going to assign their own meaning to it based on how they think the movie should have ended. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/53 "2007-01-10T18:48:37Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] If the big twist was that it was all in Willis’ head, I’d be severely disappointed. It’s the laziest possible copout, or at least tied with waving a magic wand and making everything better. [/QUOTE] I don’t think that is possible. Willis sees things early in the film that don’t happen until late in the film. eg in the virus-ridden future world he sees the message “we did it - 12 monkeys” and zoo animals wandering rounds loose. But they don’t set the animals free and paint the message until the end of the film. Also, he remembers seeing someone dying in the airport. But at the end of the film he dies in the same way as his memory. So, either he’s a time traveler who has been in the future, or he’s precognitive. Or maybe the entire thing is a dream. I’m surprised nobody has mentioned _Angels With Dirty Faces_ yet. The priest asks James Cagney’s character to pretend to be a coward to stop the kids following him into crime. Cagney refuses, because dying bravely is all he has left. But then as he is put in the chair he starts screaming and begging not to be killed. Does he change his mind and put on an act for the sake of the kids? Or does he really turn coward at the last minute? ---
**Author:** ![meow\_meow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f04885/32.png) [@meow\_meow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/meow_meow)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/54 "2007-01-10T18:52:19Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I’m surprised nobody has mentioned _Angels With Dirty Faces_ yet. The priest asks James Cagney’s character to pretend to be a coward to stop the kids following him into crime. Cagney refuses, because dying bravely is all he has left. But then as he is put in the chair he starts screaming and begging not to be killed. Does he change his mind and put on an act for the sake of the kids? Or does he really turn coward at the last minute? [/QUOTE] I loved that movie. I always thought it was for the sake of the kids. He was too tough to really go out like that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/55 "2007-01-10T18:59:16Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I don’t think that is possible. Willis sees things early in the film that don’t happen until late in the film. eg in the virus-ridden future world he sees the message “we did it - 12 monkeys” and zoo animals wandering rounds loose. But they don’t set the animals free and paint the message until the end of the film. Also, he remembers seeing someone dying in the airport. But at the end of the film he dies in the same way as his memory. So, either he’s a time traveler who has been in the future, or he’s precognitive. Or maybe the entire thing is a dream. [/QUOTE] I don’t understand your objection. Willis sees the spray-painted “Twelve Monkeys” logo and the zoo animals while scouting the post-apocalyptic world (call it the year 2027 or so) thirty years _after_ the disaster. The animals he sees are the offspring of the zoo animals released by the Twelve Monkeys. Evidently, at least some of the originally freed animals _remained_ free to breed because the unrelated plague forced the humans to shift their priorities. The end of the film is in 1996, and the spray-paint and the zoo releases are fresh because they’ve just happened. Besides, it’s established that Willis’ character has an especially good memory. He may seem “precognitive” just because he has childhood memories of how the kid-down-the-well thing worked out and the recurring nightmare of the person being killed in the airport stems from what (to his ten year-old self who was in the airport at the time) was a pretty intense experience, even if he had no idea until the last minute of his life that the person being killed was himself. As time travel stories go, this one holds together pretty well. ---
**Author:** ![Sean\_Factotum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/50afbb/32.png) [@Sean\_Factotum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sean_Factotum)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/56 "2007-01-10T19:00:05Z")
[QUOTE=Caprese] The movie itself might be too obscure for its final scene to be recognized, but I’ll throw it out just in case: The ending of _Local Hero_ is definitely up for interpretation. [/QUOTE] I must be remembering it wrong. The site is going to be used for a research facility, Burt Lancaster is going to stick around for awhile to get things up and running using the local residents, and Boone goes back to the States to return to whatever it was his job was for that company before he went to Scotland. What’s ambiguous ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/57 "2007-01-10T19:08:03Z")
Total Recall. Was it all real, or an artificially induced dream? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/58 "2007-01-10T19:08:10Z")
**Bryan Elkers** – I think his objection is that, if one of the scientists came back to the time the plague is being launched, you expect it to be to prevent that from happening (if they only want to fix the effects in the fututre, then why come back?) and that, presumably, if they did prevent the plague, then the animalsd wouldn’t still be running free, and the world wouldn’t still be devastated by plague. Of course, that gets you into all kinds of time travel paradoxes then. It’s easier to assume they don’t send anyone back. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/59 "2007-01-10T19:09:00Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] I’m surprised nobody has mentioned _Angels With Dirty Faces_ yet. The priest asks James Cagney’s character to pretend to be a coward to stop the kids following him into crime. Cagney refuses, because dying bravely is all he has left. But then as he is put in the chair he starts screaming and begging not to be killed. Does he change his mind and put on an act for the sake of the kids? Or does he really turn coward at the last minute? [/QUOTE] I can’t imagine that it matters. God knows. Within the context of the film, that’s apparently enough. Interestingly, the fates of two main characters are almost exactly reversed in _Star Spangled Comics_ #7, published four years after the film, in 1942. Two gutter kids are running from a petty crime and the one who gets caught gets his life straightened out and eventually becomes a police officer and vigilante superhero called “The Guardian”, who helps other street kids. The one who gets away stays in his life of crime, eventually becoming a killer who himself is gunned down by other criminals. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2007, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044/60 "2007-01-10T19:20:30Z")
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers] I don’t understand your objection … He may seem “precognitive” just because he has childhood memories of how the kid-down-the-well thing worked out and the recurring nightmare of the person being killed in the airport … As time travel stories go, this one holds together pretty well. [/QUOTE] Actually, I’m **agreeing** with you, not raising an objection. I said that **IF** BW is dreaming **THEN** he must be precognitive as well as insane. Or to put it another way, time travel is a better explanation for events in the movie than dreams. I reject the hypothesis that the future virus-ridden world is all in BW’s insane mind. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/annoyingly-ambiguous-endings/387044.md?page=4)