# Flick, "Vanilla Sky" **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [November 10, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342 "2005-11-10T04:15:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![pace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c2a13f/32.png) [@pace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pace)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/1 "2005-11-10T04:15:35Z")
i just watched this movie for the first time and would like clarification about the end-of-the-story message–what was it, exactly? Plz don’t tell me it was as simple as, “in order for you to really live a happy life you must face your greatest fear.” Surely it was something more profound than that, eh??? ---
**Author:** ![Roland\_Orzabal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@Roland\_Orzabal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roland_Orzabal)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/2 "2005-11-10T06:21:24Z")
My take on this, as posted to a “deleted scenes/alternate endings” thread about a year ago. > [@Me](#): > > Hmm…slightly off-topic, but how about an ending that should’ve been deleted, because it almost ruined the movie? I refer to Vanilla Sky, in which the obviously tacked-on ‘ending’ (everything after “DING!”, for those that have seen it) served two equally asinine purposes: 1) to provide a detailed explanation of the entire movie, beginning to end, for the benefit of the utterly obtuse (as everybody else had already figured it out long before), and 2) to attach a “moral lesson” to a movie that shouldn’t (and up to that point, didn’t) have one. > > When the movie continued after the DING!, my best friend and I looked at each other quizically, thinking, “what the hell else is there to say?”. What followed was the most sickening appeal to the lowest common audience-member denominator that I had ever seen; all the worse since it was attached to what was otherwise an extremely enjoyable movie. Seriously, at that point in the movie, the lead character knows what’s going on, every non-idiot in the audience knows what’s going on, the lead character is voicing his emotional reaction to it, and the “DING!” lets us know that his reaction is getting a response. This is all we require, and it would’ve been a damn fine ending at that. I like ambiguous endings when they’re done well; this one would’ve been. But nope, gotta explain the movie to the morons. I almost hated the movie because of it, but finally decided that I could just pretend that ending didn’t exist, and the movie concluded as it should have. The “moral” of this ending is in agreement with the inconceivably deep and complex philosophical observations of The Matrix: self-delusion is bad, for no particular reason. Which, in addition to being a rather pointless statement, had precisely jack-all to do with the rest of the movie. Definitely should have done without it, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/3 "2005-11-10T06:23:22Z")
Weird, am just now watching this movie for the first time on Bravo, was flipping through the channels and basically just stopped on it. It looks like it might have been enjoyable but I missed easily the first 60% of the movie. ---
**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:** [November 10, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/4 "2005-11-10T13:45:57Z")
Well, I watched it last night, start to finish, and I’m severely disappointed. Another “we’re screwing with reality” movie (and before the movies, there were stories and TV shows and comic books). Whether the cause is dreaming or virtual reality or hallucination or mental problems, it’s basically the same situation, and I didn’t see anything terrifically original or compelling about this particular incarnation to hustify the big fuss. ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/5 "2005-11-10T13:55:59Z")
tech Support! ---
**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:** [November 10, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/6 "2005-11-10T14:19:24Z")
I wanna see the version of the film where Tech Support is outsourced to India or China. Tom Cruise finds himself in a life that more and more comes to resemble a Bollywood musical when the local techs try to fine-tune his dreams. ---
**Author:** ![pace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c2a13f/32.png) [@pace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pace)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/7 "2005-11-10T18:09:38Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Well, I watched it last night, start to finish, and I’m severely disappointed. > Another “we’re screwing with reality” … Whether the cause is dreaming or virtual reality or hallucination or mental problems, it’s basically the same situation, and I didn’t see anything terrifically original or compelling about this particular incarnation to hustify the big fuss. I guess I was hoping it was alluding more in the context of cryopreservation, which some people might argue is “screwing with reality” [nature]… with current cutting edge science oocyte and embryo freezing, the future human reproduction (and cloning) implications are profound. Tom Cruise was the lead actor, but he also produced this movie, and given his Church of Scientology beliefs, I presumed the various hints throughout the film were based upon “cryonics” (or cryopreservation). Just view Wikipedia’s breakdown of Scientology, you can fill-in the script/main points, down the line. Ditto to Roland Orzabal who appreciates ambiguous endings. Coincidentally, however, that too, is also in line with one of the central Scientology beliefs, “What is true is what is true for you. No beliefs should be enforced as “true” on anyone” … yadda yadda yadda. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_Draper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Don\_Draper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_Draper)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/8 "2005-11-10T18:51:56Z")
> [@pace](#): > > Tom Cruise was the lead actor, but he also produced this movie, and given his Church of Scientology beliefs, I presumed the various hints throughout the film were based upon “cryonics” (or cryopreservation). Just view Wikipedia’s breakdown of Scientology, you can fill-in the script/main points, down the line. Interesting. I saw this flick a while ago, and I remember thinking that only a superficial Hollywood movie star would consider this twat to be truly deep & meaningful. I kept imagining Tom Cruise reading the screenplay and wondering to himself: “What an utterly, wrenchingly _deep_ story! What _would_ it be like to be less than the ideal of physical perfection & beauty?” I didn’t factor in the Scientology angle. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/9 "2005-11-10T19:01:55Z")
> [@pace](#): > > Tom Cruise was the lead actor, but he also produced this movie, and given his Church of Scientology beliefs, I presumed the various hints throughout the film were based upon “cryonics” (or cryopreservation). Just view Wikipedia’s breakdown of Scientology, you can fill-in the script/main points, down the line. Well, I doubt that the similarities had much to do with Cruise. The film is, as Director Cameron Crowe calls it, a “cover version” of the Spanish Language film **Abre los ojos**. And while Crowe and Cruise are good friends, I imagine Crowe is more concerned with making a good film than converting anyone over to Scentology. I love **Vanilla Sky** , but I admit my appreciation grew after listening to Crowe on the DVD commentary. Pash ---
**Author:** ![irishgirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/8edcca/32.png) [@irishgirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/irishgirl)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flick-vanilla-sky/330342/10 "2005-11-10T19:16:39Z")
It’s a horrible, horrible version of a wonderful film. One which sadly still stars Penelope Cruz, but is much, much better than **Vanilla Sky**. **Abre Los Ojos** [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125659/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0125659/) Written and directed by Alejandro Amenábar, it’s an entirely classier, better acted, better directed and better plotted movie, which is more coherent and actually IS deep. Watch it and forget the Cruise/Crowe travesty.