Side-story. It apparently played ONCE in a theater as special presentation at SDCC that year. I actually got to see the first ever official public screening in LA at the Egyptian Theater as a double feature with Transformers The Movie.
Regarding some of these…. down endings aren’t always better—I feel like that is common position in these kinds of discussions.
Audrey 2 wins might work as a funny ending to an off-kilter off-broadway musical…. it does not work for that movie at all.
And “Get Out” wouldn’t hold the iconic positition that it does with the original ending. Jordan Peele was right to change it.
I read that novel when it was posted in installments on whatever the site was before Cracked bought it. Just this guy putting up his book for people to read for free.
Doesn’t the fact that it is a lie make it not heartwarming. I mean, you realize what they’re doing right? I assume you do, because you call it a lie. They are euthanizing him. That’s kind of the opposite of a cop out.
I mean, that’s a fair interpretation - but I kept reading it as perpetuating the perpetual lie of the whole movie. He doesn’t love, he doesn’t have a choice, he’s locked into one age, one method of acting (the character), one way to believe, and isn’t ever allowed to grow up. And even in death, no chance to actually live, love truly, or improve. Again, the whole Peter Pan thing.
Note - I don’t claim my reading or feelings represent everyone. Most of the people I talked to about the movie IRL were either taking it to be a “sweet happy ending” or were similarly bitter, overly-rational, and confused about exactly what story the movie was trying to tell. It did a lot of things, but none of them seemed to gel.
That’s why he had to be put down. As an act of kindness. We humans truly would have to be monsters to create such a machine, that craves only love—the love of a single individual—and yet built it to outlive not only a human life, but all human life by thousands of years at least.
Peter Pan. If Wendy had sung him a lullaby, ground up sleeping pills in a glass of warm milk, and smothered him as he slept.
At this point, I think it’s important to recall that it was originally a Kubrick project, not a Spielberg project, and the grim ending is consistent with that. As the epilogue to Barry Lyndon goes:
It was in the reign of George III that the aforesaid personages lived and quarreled; good or bad, handsome or ugly, rich or poor they are all equal now.
I always thought the interesting part of it was that Yelland had indeed decided to fuck with the timeline. I’m not saying it was some great deeply philosophical movie, but you had Sheen and Farentino and O’Neal all giving their differing opinions on what course they should take and then the captain made his decision. Like it’s the voyage, not the destination that matters.
That said, I would have loved to see the battle. Not just for the visuals, but because it would have meant more of John Scott’s incredible score.
I’m surprised that Brazil and Blade Runner haven’t been mentioned, two films infamous for having downer endings that were crudely recut into happy endings by the studios.
Brazil is an interesting choice. The studio was editing the movie without Gilliam’s approval, while he was trying to get his original (or very close to it) version released. Eventually it was, although with little backing from the studio, and that’s the version most people have seen.
The studio version, which I’ve seen once, had a happy ending that would probably be considered a cop out. Ironically, Sam retreats into his dream world in the Gilliam version, but that’s presented as reality in the happy-ending version. “It’s all a dream” is the legit ending; “it’s not a dream” is the cop out.
Agree 100%. I love the novel and have read it several times. We studied it in high school and our teacher helped us understand how Malamud was reimagining the tragic hero trope in a modern baseball setting: Roy’s team, the Knights; his “sword,” Wonderboy; the superhuman hero whose might is not enough to forestall the downfall triggered by his fatal flaw.
And then came the movie…
But! And here’s where I agree with you again, I grew to love the movie for its own merits.
Are you sure it’s Holy Grail you’re talking about? I can’t think of anything particularly expensive about the opening scene—unless it’s the “great expense” involved in completing the opening credits in an entirely different style.
Eh, this is about movies, but I’m opening it up for books given that Inna is watching the adaptation of Stephen King’s 11-22-63.
OK, so the protagonist goes and saves Kennedy. But then, things start getting wonky - there’s an earthquake in LA soon after the assassination is stopped, 20 or 30 years later Maine is part of Canada and there are “ripping” sounds, all brought about by the fact that the protagonist changed history. IIRC, it is implied that all this has profound implications for the future of the planet, and is because of the old trope The Natural Order Of Things Shall Not Be Messed With.
So he has to go back one more time to stop his stopping of the assassination so that The Rightful Order of Things Will Be Upheld. And so Kennedy, just like the band, remains Dead.
But… imho… this was a cop out. A far, far better ending would have been showing that Kennedy just sucked at being President. I mean, it’s fiction, right? Just have JFK launch a nuclear exchange. Have him become a fascist. Have him become deranged and start a global pandemic.
In other words, don’t wuss out and say “well, we did good, but, you know, NATURE". Make the dilemma such that the world was better because this guy was shot before he went off the deep end. You could have had a much more complex… and satisfying… ending to what was, until then, a pretty stand-out novel.
Pretty sure I’ll get some disagreement here, but to quote Pet Semetary - sometimes, dead is better.