Because the good guys have to win, and live, for the sequel.
When I read the O.P. from outside, I instantly thought of “I am a Legend”. God, not only was the last adaptation stupid as hell (who had the genius idea of using CGIs to do the closest-to-human-and-cheapest-to-have-monsters-of-all: the Vampire/zombie?!!) but it’s like it completely failed at understanding the original plot. The epilogue is like a big fuck you to Matheson and the hordes of people that have read (and understood) the story.
It does sounds like an American thing, both in its necessary triumph of the hero or the consumer "feelgood’ dictatorship.
State sponsorship is very low in percentage in the financing of most Euro movies, especially commercial ones. TVs tends to be the major sponsors.
The major difference isnt that much in who pays the bills (in both Euro and US cases , it’s essentially the private sector) but who has the final cut. In the US the movie belongs to the producer, he is the one that shows up on stage to get the Best Movie award, and most of all he is the one that decides which version of the movie gets released.
That’s the essential point.
The same director made both versions of The Vanishing, but I personally haven’t read whether he wanted to make a “happy ending” remake, whether he wanted a big US hit and so gladly made it a happy ending, or if the studio pressured him.
Considering that it only made $14 million and I’m sure that the stars involved did not come too cheaply, plus the reviews sucked, this was a misstep. US reviews for the release of the original were full of praise.
This thread brings L.A. Confidential to mind. The movie doesn’t have a typical happy ending, but it’s a lot happier than the end of the book. And the whole nature of the book changed in the screenwriting process. The movie was about three cops finding redemption, while in the book they never even look for it. It’s about the only example I can think of with the book and movie versions being so vastly different, but each still managing to be great on its own terms.
If I’m paying for it, there better be a happy ending.
Uhm, I think paying for happy endings is a whole other thread.
Considering how often movies are watched by people on a date, I wonder if there’s a correlation between the happiness of the ending of the movie and the chance of “getting lucky” afterward.
Apparently, a whole lot of people do not understand or have never experienced catharsis, which good tragedies can provide.
But I find it interesting that pampered Americans–in a very wealthy society where every need is taken care of in abundance for almost everyone–are the most disinclined to enjoy tragedies with whines of “life is depressing enough.” Whereas, in Shakespeare’s day (for example), during which I time I think it would be very hard to argue that life wasn’t a great deal shittier than it is now, tragedies were widely enjoyed.
Incidentally, test audiences don’t always push that way - I can think of one instance where they insisted on a less happy ending (Terminator 2, where the original ending was a multi-decade flash-forward explaining how Skynet never happened and everyone was happy).
At one time the American movies basically self-censored themselves and this may have had something to do with it.
For instance, characters were not supposed to do bad things without getting punished for them. So often in a book an intentional killing was changed to an accidental killing.
This reminds me of one of my favourite books, A Tree Grows In Brooklyn, where the main character Francie, expresses her dissatisfaction with the fact, the hero always arrives in the nick of time to “save the day.” Then she tries to rewrite the play realistically, where the hero doesn’t show up, and the heroine is given 30 days eviction notice and has to taken in washing and her kids have to go get jobs, etc…
A) Yes, we do know about catharsis, but we don’t need it all the time. It’s there for when we need it, but unnecessary tragedy does not feel like catharsis to me, it just feels like unneccessary tragedy. That movie Slumdog Millionaire - those things that happened to that kid happen to people in India, but rarely do they all happen to one person. Just keep tacking on tragedies and I don’t believe you anymore.
B) So just because our life is better than Shakespeare’s time means we have nothing to be sad about? Life is depressing enough. The media focuses on the worst things. We hear about rapes and pedophilia like we never did. I don’t believe it happens more, it’s just that we never would have heard the gory details of gang rapes of thirteen year old girls at one time. And it doesn’t even apply to our personal lives, which as you say, are supposed to be good and wonderful - which causes even more dissonance when they are not. I have a fairly peaceful life, but all around me both of our families are going through seriously troubled times. It isn’t always happy-go-lucky just because we have material possessions.
If everyone dies, there can be no sequel.
I’m with you. “Life is depressing enough”? I’d be willing to bet nearly everyone saying this is privileged by any reasonable standard - food, shelter, cable and internet, disposable income, and enough leisure time to enjoy it. A good percentage of those are probably in healthy relationships, and also have friends and family there for support. Life can be occasionally depressing, but for the most part, I just see this as people with out-of-whack perspectives.
And I hate tacked-on happy endings.
I think it’s because American film is totally market oriented packaged product and in order to generate profit film needs to be seen by majority of the movie going audience. As opposed to say, European films that rely on elaborate funding schemes based on taxpayer money.
So I trust the guys who invest money in a project and they do their research on what kind of movies most people want to see (which is “happy-ending” movies). Which reminds me of this exchange from The Player:
Griffin Mill: It lacked certain elements that we need to market a film successfully.
June: What elements?
Griffin Mill: Suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart, nudity, sex. Happy endings. Mainly happy endings.
June: What about reality?
Now, one might argue that there are some notable examples that do not follow the formula and I agree. However, part of the mystique of movies where main protagonist dies in the end (my favourite example: “American Beauty”) is that they are rare in the sea of “happy-ending” movies.
Here’s one WAG/theory, though I’m not sure to what extent I myself buy it:
Americans’ objection to unhappy endings isn’t because they’re unhappy, but because they’re endings. Americans, with their can-do attitude, see unhappiness as a problem to be solved, not a fate to be accepted. They have no problem watching movie characters in miserable, difficult, unpleasant, or tragic circumstances, but they want to see how they then go on to deal with those circumstances.
How is this even really an American phenomenon in any media?
Doesn’t anybody remember Great Expectations? Even Charles Dickens was hounded to provide a slightly less downer ending for his story.
The bulk of Bollywood productions – meaning the Hindi-language popular/commercial movie industry – is absolutely calculated to cater in every single way to popular tastes, which includes happy endings and every other lowest-common-denominator characteristic. Occasionally, a more “serious” movie is produced but they are rarely commercially successful. The same is true of the Tamil and Telegu-language movie industries.
In India, non-popular movies are considered part of what is called the “parallel” cinema industry, which includes the bulk of critically acclaimed movies, such as Bengali-language films (Satyajit Ray, etc.). They have a much narrower audience and generate far less revenue than the big three (Hindi, Tamil, and Telegu).
The edition I read had an epilogue (tacked onafter the twist ending) in which the British and Russian pilots are the last two left. They drive out onto the ice and meet God,in a very clumsy Adam and Eve style. Mind, that was a British edition.
American audiences don’t always demand happy endings - they’re often perfectly satisfied with **bittersweet **endings, too. Just look at some of the most popular movies ever: Casablanca; Gone with the Wind; the Godfather; and anything from John Ford. Or more recent examples: Titanic, E.T., the Dark Knight; Forrest Gump; the *Toy Story *movies;and the *Lord of the Rings *movies. Tearjerkers have always been popular with the American public.
I think the defining characteristic of mainstream American stories isn’t that the good guys live happily ever after - audiences don’t necessarily need that. What they *do *want, however, is that the bad guys not win. Even Shakespeare followed that rule: in any of his tragedies, did the villains ever come out ahead?
“All the time”? Really? You see Hollywood bombarding the theaters with tragedies?
Ok. So, if a modern version of “Hamlet,” or “Oedipus Rex,” or “The Scarlet Letter” is made, you advocate changing the ending? So people don’t have to feel sad? 'Cause, sadness is bad, mmmkay.
You really think that hearing more information about suffering elsewhere in the world than used to be possible (if that’s even true; I actually doubt it) is worse than, or even as bad as, living in the kind of suffering that most people faced in Shakespeare’s day? Recreational outrage is really suffering, huh? Here’s an idea: you can live your pampered life in a first-world, 21st century nation and stop reading all the stories about gang rapes and such. Turn off the news. Cancel your newspaper subscription. In other words, if that is what is causing you misery–other people’s suffering–you have complete control of eliminating its effect on your life. That was a bit harder to accomplish in other times and places than it is now, don’t you think?