153 réponses à ce sujet

[nikki191]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

By the way, on the other side of the coin, the BEST-ever endings are those that rely on a complete lack of spoilers to keep up their effect, and with that I nominate:

★ Cube

★ Fight Club

★ Pan's Labyrinth

i totally agree and for me id like to add hard candy to that list.. the whole movie floored me

[the_one_54321]

Ambaryerno wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...
I would also throw in Return of the King. Any one of the endings might have been fine...but they threw in 25 minutes worth. Movie is CONSIDERABLY better if you turn it off right when Frodo and Sam are saved.

You sir, are a frelling IDIOT. Did you even READ the books? Had they removed anything else (they already shortened the end by cutting the Scouring of the Shire) would have completely destroyed the meaning of the film.

I am much in agreement with you. The ending could have gone on for another 30 minutes, easily, and it would only have been better.

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Eli-da-Mage wrote...

House of Flying Daggers.

"I want to be with you"
"Okay im gonna jump off this wishing cliff and see if that ever happens, k?"
*woman jumps*

IIRC, that was Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, not HoFD. But yeah. Both my mom and I hated the ending when we first saw it; our reaction was pretty much "WTF? Waste of time" and we turned off the TV in disgust. In the last few years I've learnt to appreciate the quiet subtleties of Ang Lee's filmmaking, though (recently watched and loved an old film of his, called Pushing Hands), and I might just give this one another chance.

Modifié par Amberyl Ravenclaw, 21 juin 2010 - 03:55 .

[Amedyr]

Gotta go with Dark Moon Rising. The ending itself wasn't so horrible, but the dialogue between the main character and his father during the final fighting scene...

son: "F*** you!"
father: "F*** you harder!"

Would have been very funny, had they written it with that purpose, but alas, it was meant to be serious.

Modifié par Amedyr, 21 juin 2010 - 04:01 .

[Amberyl Ravenclaw]

Amedyr wrote...

Gotta go with Dark Moon Rising. The ending itself wasn't so horrible, but the dialogue between the main character and his father during the final fighting scene...

son: "F*** you!"
father: "F*** you harder!"

Would have been very funny, had they meant it to be funny, but alas it wasn't.

Underpaid scriptwriters, perhaps? Heh.

[Sand King]

hoysexyjew wrote...

Sand King wrote...

smecky-kitteh wrote...

what ever happened to that halo movie?

It's in Pre-Production 

Translated, what Pre-production really means is "the ongoing process of trying to find a director... for about 4 years".

No, The project has been restarted. Peter Jackson is directing. They are in pre-production as of April of this year.

[DukeOfNukes]

Ambaryerno wrote...

DukeOfNukes wrote...

I would also throw in Return of the King. Any one of the endings might have been fine...but they threw in 25 minutes worth. Movie is CONSIDERABLY better if you turn it off right when Frodo and Sam are saved.

You sir, are a frelling IDIOT. Did you even READ the books? Had they removed anything else (they already shortened the end by cutting the Scouring of the Shire) would have completely destroyed the meaning of the film.

For starters, there's no need for insults. If you disagree, then you can state so with some civility...instead of being a jackass for no reason.

The problem is that they cut out the good parts of the ending, and left in and even ADDED in alot of useless drivel. In the book, there was no slow-mo gay hobbits jumping up and down on the bed...I mean, really...hearing Frodog go "GGGGGGGAAAAAAAANNNNNNNDDDDDDDAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLFFFFFFFFFFFFFF? SSSSSSSSSSSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? MMMMMMMMMMEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYY? PPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNN?" was like Chinese water torture. And they had to FIGHT their way into the shire and kick Saruman out, who is then killed by Grima. There was some excitement going on...and it gave you the impression that even though Sauron is gone, there world isn't just magically better.

Movies and books are VERY different. When you've just spent 36 hours reading books, using 2 of that to tie up the ending isn't all that bad...when watching 9 hours of movies, using half an hour is pretty bad.

EDIT: included some final, parting thoughts

Modifié par DukeOfNukes, 21 juin 2010 - 07:27 .

[the_one_54321]

You're seriously complaining because the ending didn't have enough action in it? Boy did you guys miss the whole point of the end of the books. The movie, on the other hand, understood it quite well, though I'll admit that the scouring of the Shire (which was not fighting their way back into anything, by the way, it was establishment of development of the characters and ending themes of the story) should have been included.

[Ambaryerno]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're seriously complaining because the ending didn't have enough action in it? Boy did you guys miss the whole point of the end of the books. The movie, on the other hand, understood it quite well, though I'll admit that the scouring of the Shire (which was not fighting their way back into anything, by the way, it was establishment of development of the characters and ending themes of the story) should have been included.

Agreed. There was no "fighting their way through." The four Hobbits more or less just rode through and no one had the guts to stand up to them. There was only one brief fight which Tolkien didn't expand on in any significant detail.

What happened in the movie was necessary to wrap everything up:

They needed to show the reuniting of the Fellowship after the Ring was destroyed. Now none of us has ever walked into the deepest circle of hell, but I'd imagine if you did and came out of it alive, the people you cared about most would have been teary-eyed and couch-jumping excited to see you again.

They needed to show the coronation of Aragorn as King and reunite him with Arwen. THIS is the conclusion of Aragorn's character development, not the Battle of the Morannon. If they didn't show the coronation Aragorn's story would have been left hanging.

They needed to get the Hobbits back to the Shire. It's that bit of closure for the audience to show that it's still there. This is also tied up in part of Sam's story by showing how his experience changed him (Fellowship of the Ring he doesn't even have the nerve to ask Rosie to dance. By the end of Return of the King he confronts her directly. This was folded into the Scouring of the Shire in the books, with Sam's take-charge attitude in front of Rosie during the preparations for the Battle of Bywater).

They needed to show that things pass. This was the ENTIRE point of Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel leaving Middle-earth at the end. Their tasks were completed, and it hinted at the deeper melancholy of the books in that everything the Elves created was destined to pass away into memory. It closed out Gandalf's development, as well as the more minor roles of Elrond and Galadriel by showing them returning into the West.

Finally, it brought the development of Frodo and Bilbo to an end. The movie just wouldn't have been right if Frodo remained in Hobbiton to live happily-ever-after. Because he DIDN'T. They even made a point when he told Sam the wound from Weathertop never fully healed (they did ommit that Frodo suffered lingering illness and pain from Shelob's attack, however). The entire POINT of what Frodo was sacrificing--his future--and that he was saving the Shire for others, NOT himself would have been lost had they ended when you suggested.

The ending of RotK did EXACTLY what it needed to do. It closed out all the storylines and plots, and the key emotional climax of the film (I still can't watch RotK without crying during Frodo's departure). The Scouring was a sad loss, but I think the way Jackson approached it, by using events elsewhere in the film to highlight the growth of the Hobbits (which that's primarily what the Scouring chapter did, was show how much stronger the four became since setting out).

When you have a 12 hour movie, you have a LOT of story threads to wrap up. Anything less would have cheapened it.

[the_one_54321]

Not to mention that the movie ended exactly where the books ended: "Well, I'm back."



With complete closure to every story line and plot device opened in throughout.

[HoonDing]

Only story line that remained open in the movie was Éowyn & Faramir.

Modifié par virumor, 21 juin 2010 - 10:12 .

[the_one_54321]

In the extended version, they let you know what happens with them.

[Wicked 702]

Ambaryerno wrote...

Inglorious Basterds.

Maybe it's just because I'm not into Tarantino, but nothing in that movie did anything for me. It was dull and boring, and simultaneously was way too long but not long enough. The German officer who spends the ENTIRE movie trying to find and kill Brad Pitt's team, and even strangles their collaborator in the last 15-odd minutes for betraying her country, suddenly decides he wants to make a deal? There was NOTHING in the movie leading up to that which in ANY way made it believable!

They should have dropped the alternate history ending and the plot about the Jewish girl (seriously, her storyline is something like 2/3 of the movie even though she's in the trailers for at most 5 seconds) and just done a new take on The Dirty Dozen, or something (which is what the trailers made it LOOK like it was going to be! SO disappointed).

I won't disagree with you on whether the movie is good or bad. However, I will completely disagree on your assessment of this particular character. You're probably used to seeing "evil" portrayed as some psychopathic killer on a bloody rampage. There are many other ways to write and portray an "evil" individual. In this case, you're dealing with an individual who is completely committed to advancing himself (both career/stature wise and monetarily) at any expense. This n**i (nationalist socialist) has no loyalty to the Reich or his country. It's all about bettering himself, in whatever way is most available to him at the time.

He spends the entire movie doing what he does because Germany is winning and he can earn fame, power, rank, etc. by serving the interests of the Reich. However when it becomes apparent that his side is no longer winning, he is readily willing to betray his country because it's in HIS BEST INTERESTS to do so. His survivial is more important than anything else. To me his character made the most sense out of all of them.

.....but then I'm Wicked....

[A Killing Sound]

The bad movie ending that stands out for me right now is Escape From L.A. Not only was a large part of it rehashed from the first movie, but it also stupid as hell: use an EMP to shut down the entire planet. Okay, that's stupid, not to mention the fact that even by the movie's logic it would be impossible to pull off.

I agree with the M. Night Shaymalan comments. Especially Signs. Why would aliens that die when they come in contact with water invade a planet that is comprised of 75% water? It's like if humans invaded a world that rained acid bullets.

[Bron Avery]

Well, George (Remario) was never my scene and I don't like Star Wars!

[Daerog]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

The Mist

Ah crap. That movie.
*SPOILER ALERT*
That movie should have stuck with the original ending of driving off, but instead had to drag the story out and pull the stupidest stunt in nature. Really, a .00001% chance of survival is better than 0%, so that bugged me right there, and then they add in that very last bit. I went from liking the main character to absolutely loathing him in 2 minutes.

[Ariq007]

I hated the ending of The Watchmen. Too bad b/c the movie was incredible up until then.

[the_one_54321]

Darth Jayder wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You're seriously complaining because the ending didn't have enough action in it? Boy did you guys miss the whole point of the end of the books. The movie, on the other hand, understood it quite well, though I'll admit that the scouring of the Shire (which was not fighting their way back into anything, by the way, it was establishment of development of the characters and ending themes of the story) should have been included.

Um no.
I've read the books twice and seen the movies multiple times.  The endings in the movie were unnecessarily long and boring.  Considering what they chose to take out and leave in, they should have shortened the boring speeches and had the scouring of the Shire in there.  And based on your post...I think you missed the point of the stories my friend.  

Well, if we're going to start listing qualifications and such, I've read the books, along with The Hobbit and The Silmarilian, and Unfinished Tales, and seen all the movies (I own the extended versions) more times than I can count. But now that the [richard] measuring contest is out of the way, let me just say that you have a very short attention span. I'm sorry that you were unable to appreciate such a comprehensive and emotional ending to 12 hours of film.

[Lucy Glitter]

HEAVY RAIN.

[Ambaryerno]

Ariq007 wrote...

I hated the ending of The Watchmen. Too bad b/c the movie was incredible up until then.

Uh, why? That's more or less how the graphic novel ended (the only difference was that Ozymandias made it look like an alien attacked in the graphic novel, rather than setting it up to frame Dr. Manhattan). You'd have destroyed the story by changing it.

I can't STAND when people attack movies for following its source material too closely....

And Wicked,

Tell me, where in the movie was there any foreshadowing whatsoever that Col. Landa was going to do that about face? He strangled Diane Kruger's character for HELPING the Americans only 5 minutes before he struck a deal with them. If he was going to let them get away with it all along where's the point in that? Just to show he's evil?

Modifié par Ambaryerno, 22 juin 2010 - 04:00 .