This?
This!
This is how the movie ends? Sorry, but it doesn’t cut it. It ruined it for me. Much like SIGNS did.
Funny how the character in the film told him not to ruin the last third of the movie and that’s exactly what he did.
By the end, I was actually praying for a dream sequence. Do you know how desperate that is?
The movie is a failure. A shocking failure considering the inventiveness displayed beforehand.
I took it as kind of tounge in cheek, like the writer(Charlie Kaufman), lost for any way to continue the adapataption, took a page from Daniel’s book and added some pulpiness to it, fictionalized it by adding the drug subplot and the chase scenes to make it more exciting for the mass audiences.
I felt the same way as soon as it started to get into that part, and then I got the Joke and laughed. The last part was fiction, period.
The movie ending “badly” was purposeful.
The movie turned stupid when the subplot about drugs came in. After that it was a totally by-the-book thriller ending, with every single plot device Charlie has said he hates. The point was that all of this started after he asked his brother Donald for help; when Donald started writing the movie, everything turned stupid.
There was a really good thread on this a while back, but I don’t have time to search for it right now.
I just finished watching this movie again, and I still love it.
The ending is supposed to be bad, because that’s where Donald Kaufman steps in to write it. As soon as Charlie Kaufman finds himself in New York, the 3rd act of the movie begins and his brother takes over. Everything Charlie didn’t want is incorporated into the movie because that’s all that Donald knows how to do.
Of course, there really is no Donald Kaufman at all. 
*whooosh&
I saw that ampersand in the place of an asterisk right as I hit post, but it was too late.
Ah. Making a good movie shitty for art’s sake. Yes. Whoosh, indeed.
I’m sure that’s what it was all about.
O got the joke, that Donald was now the screenwriter but I thought it was a very lame idea. As soon as you realise what is happening you think “right this is just a gag and has nothing to do with the storyline (real or imagined)” but it just goes on and on. What started out as a worthwhile amusement becomes flogging a non-existent horse.
Wait… what exactly do you think happened?
I thought the concept of the ending was pretty original.
Seriously, I couldn’t stop giggling for the last 30 minutes. It has everything to do with the storyline. This isn’t a movie about writing a script, it’s a movie about scriptwriting.
It’s a great parody of the failproof Syd Fields-like screenwriting techniques that have taken over hollywood. It’s funny because a lot of movies are really that stupid. They start with a potential good idea and get bogged down by what’s expected of a “good” script. I worked for a while as a script reader, so maybe that influences my judgement…
That’s exactly what it was about, but it didn’t make a good movie shitty; it made a non-existent movie shitty.
The point was that by now we’re totally seeing through every convention of scriptwriting, and the final 30 minutes of the film are HILARIOUS as all the tired elements are brought in. Because there’s no way we’re expected to believe them; the whole point is that the drug subplot, the dying scene, even the deus-ex-freaking-machina have been totally transparently added in to give the movie some kind of a conclusion, since before this it was clearly headed for no conclusion at all. Or rather, any conclusion it was headed toward would have been utterly unsatisfying after the movie started with a two-minute History Of The Entire Universe.
The point is that the plot of Adaptation is not the story of the orchids and all that; the plot is that movie being written, and so we aren’t expected to fall for the movie’s plot points and twists (especially since it essentially has none, until “Donald” steps in). With this odd and slightly uncomfortable distance between us and the orchid movie, the “singing ‘Happy Together’ to my dying brother” scene becomes bizarrely funny, as we have been totally divorced from caring about the characters, and instead care about the screenwriter. And in some way, we’re glad that SOME kind of ending got put onto it, just so Charlie wouldn’t implode from the stress.
(Thanks to vibrotronica for articulating a lot of this in the prior thread and in conversation, and helping me understand that film better.)
Put me down as someone who thought the ending was brilliantly ironic. But then, in another thread I’m wetting myself with joy over the prospect of a Pirates of the Caribbean movie, so perhaps my opinion shouldn’t be trusted.
They suck. As does the rest of the film. Yeah, I get all the irony and the tongue-in-cheek stuff, but most of it just got me thinking “oh my god, they didn’t just make that joke”. But they did. I imagine Charlie Kauffman thinks of himself as a really intelligent person, and maybe he is (after all, he wrote one of the greatest screenplays of all time - Being John Malkovic - but that still doesn’t entitle him to think he’s above everyone else in Hollywood.
I actually think of the ending as one of two things:
A piece of crap cop out, with no redeeming features, or
A really funny punch in the face of the fans of Being J.M.; critics; writers and the whole world really - sort of a film equivalent of Lou Reed’s Metal Machine Music (two albums of non stop feedback which he promoted by bullshitting in interviews that he’d hidden symphonies in there).
If it’s the second, the message seems to be ‘I’m a genius, so I can do something really stupid and insulting, but it will be interpreted as genius because that’s what the whole movie was leading up to.’ Charlie didn’t need to come up with anything clever because he could pretend it was an ironic, post-modern comment on screenwriting.
The problem is, every other artform figured out (funnier and more ironic) ways of doing this a few decades ago at least, and he has to face the fact there aren’t any symphonies in the grooves - it’s all just a bunch of noise.
Actually, Being John Malkovitch also only had a fantastic first half hour and an average ending, so maybe Charlie is commenting on how he fooled everyone with that movie.
No, it’s both of you.
Yes, but should Charlie and Donald and Donald’s gf all turned out to be the same person?
Here’s the other thread in which we went round and round on this:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=152568
My admiration for Adaptation was reinforced when I went to see Identity a couple of weeks ago.
Identity is essentially The Three, only with ten multiple personalities.
It isn’t just Donald taking over the script, it is after he goes to the wiriting seminar hosted by Robert McKee (I have actually been to that exact seminar, it is real). In that seminar McKee basically says that you can write any screenplay you want, and it continat the most amazing insight and deepest layers of intellecutal meaning, but you have to make the audience care. Some may argue, I guess that really the Adaptation is poking fun at that aspect, but I actually see it as an admission. The Charlie character in the movie realized he was being entirely too self-indulgent. So he takes the movie too far in the other direction, overly pulpy and outrageous. The movie is not about writing screenplays that value substance over style, but actually trying to balance the two. The first part of the movie, where Charlie has all sorts of grandiose ideas about a meaningfull screenplay can be considered as much a parody as the ending.
That was my stance on it. I got that it was a joke, I just didn’t think it was entertaining or funny. How could you not see a gag you’re being hit over the head with?