Bad endings

[sinisterbehavior]

Im new to the board and still do not have a complete script. I have about four in slow progress, but i have a question. I have always been a person that likes to do the opposite of what is normally done. most if not all popular movies have happy endings and this bothers me. i am wndering how others feel about the prospect of obtaining success selling scripts where the good guy doesnt get off so easily.

[drgnlvrljh]

I think the ending should tie up the majority of loose ends (the major ones), and fit the story. If the story calls for a depressing ending, then it should have one. But don't manipulate things just to have a depressing ending. That's cheating your audiance, and they will never forgive you for it.

[maestrowork]

As long as your ending is satisfying to the audience, you can end it any way you want.

Romeo and Juliet/Titanic/West Side Story, etc. end with tragedy involving the protagonists... but the endings of the stories themselves have meaning and are satisfying to the readers... in a sense, they didn't die in vain...

But if you ask the audience to invest their time, energy and emotions on a character, then have him/her disposed of without anything worthwhile to deliver, then you'll have cheated your audience.

For example, the movie "Birth" does not have a conventional, happy ending. Yet IMHO, it's satisfying in a sense that something is revealed to the audience about ourselves.

Do what works.

[Kevin Yarbrough]

After many, many, many...did I say many (?) years King finally finsihed his Dark Tower series. Now I know it isn't horror but the ending was not happy and left many people mad. But to me, it ended how it should have. I never felt cheated and that is how I know it ended right.

Now my book, The Fire Within, has an ending that is anything but happy. People have told me they were mad at me for doing it that way, but the majority said it ended the only way it could have. A lot of my stories have no happy endings. Why? Because life isn't a happy ending, at least not the majority of it. To make a good ending you have to pull something out of your butt that the reader didn't see coming, but at the same time make it so your readers don't feel cheated.

So if you want happy endings don't read my work. Life isn't a happy ending and I try to write true life with a bit of the supernatural thrown in.

[MacAllister]

Stephen King said something really interesting about the little boy dying, in Cujo--I can't find the exact quote (I'll have to look for it later) but he said something along the lines of: Readers were upset with me for killing [boy's name] and I didn't really plan it--it surprised ME when it happened...but it's what happened.

I took it to mean: It was right for the story.

[maestrowork]

I tend to agree with Stephen King on that.

A bad ending is an ending that doesn't fit the story, that goes against everything we've read so far, that manipulates the readers into feeling something that is not true.

[Rose]

Umm, hi everyone, I have no business posting in this thread since I've never even attempted to write a script and rarely read horror.

Still, I do go to the movies every now and then and I read a lot. Thanks to you, I now realize why most Hollywood movies and books make me want to gouge my eyes out with a fork. The endings cheat me by pulling a happy ending out of nowhere. Viva the sad ending that works!!

See ya...

[MacAllister]

ROSE!!! Great to see you here! :) Actually--this isn't a thread about writing scripts (i've never written one, either) It's mostly just about movies we've all seen, and why they did or didn't work for us. :)

As for writing horror...shhhhhhhh...we'll just let that one slide. :) Actually, I think several of us write across various genres. And I'm pretty sure Maestro doesn't write horror, either.

So welcome. Stick around and play, if you've a mind to.

[maestrowork]

I may not write horror, but I AM horror.

GRRRRRR.

Don't let the peeing puppy fool you.

[preyer]

if you've watched the t.v. programme, '100 scariest movie moments,' (or something like that), i think it was meg tilly who said in modern horror movies you're always waiting for that extra 'oomph', that part where mike meyers rising up silently in the background after stabbing him in the eye with a clothes hanger, where jason does the same, where freddy does the same, where, well, you get the picture. it think what she said (if it wasn't tilly, it was a female) is true, too: you always have that little extra bit of action after the hero thinks they've killed the baddie. 'the ring' is a perfect example and even 'alien versus predator' had it. for that matter, 'alien' did it. i'd venture to guess that whole thing started somewhere in the 70's.

is it good or bad? well, it's certainly cliche nowadaze, eh? there's a new 'amityville (sp) horror' movie coming out, and it should be interesting from a movie-making standpoint to point out the differences from 30 year old horror styles and modern scare tactics.

i'm not adverse to killing the protagonist off if it suits the story. i don't think anyone really is, particularly for a movie. they killed the real protag off in 'the exorcist' (though, admittedly, they brought him back for a sequel, but no one questioned his death originally). another (older) trend is to kill the protag off in a sequel once a new set of characters come into the franchise, like 'hellraiser', 'alien' and 'house' and i want to say the 'freddy' franchises. so, maybe that's something to bear in mind, eh? i mean, you might consider keeping the main character around with the intent of eventually killing them off later. as it is, there are just too many movies to list where the protag dies (remember 'the fly' and 'christine'?).

happy endings in general get turned on end. 'poltergeist,' where they all survive, but at a pretty steep material cost, isn't exactly uplifting. this is pretty common in horror, too, eh? like the inherited house collapses in the end.

i'd say there's a different dynamic involved in characterization with a script vs. a book. i can blow off a movie in a couple of hours, but i feel you run a bigger risk having bad things happen in the end of a book, where a person spends a significant amount of time holding in their hands. just my opinion, but i think you've got more creative lee-way with a script's ending than a book's in terms of justification.

[Kevin Yarbrough]

Stephen King said something really interesting about the little boy dying, in Cujo--I can't find the exact quote (I'll have to look for it later) but he said something along the lines of: Readers were upset with me for killing [boy's name] and I didn't really plan it--it surprised ME when it happened...but it's what happened.

I took it to mean: It was right for the story.
Mac, you know why the ending of Cujo suprised King so much? It wasn't because the boy died, it was because that was the one book that he doesn't remember writing, and one of his best in his opinion. He was stoned and drunk throughout the whole book he couldn't ever remember sitting down to write the book. If you couldn't remember writing the book the ending will suprise you. But he is right, if the ending fits in the story then it is the right one. With mine I tried to have the protag live happily ever after, but if I did that I would cheat not only myself, and the sequel, but the reader as well. She had to die, there was no other way.

Sometimes sad endings are the best. Alien V. Preator ended just right. If they would have all lived, what was the point? With killing off the main characters, characters that the reader has grown to love, then you will get an enotional response that will make the book rememberable. They might hate you for it, but rest assured they will remember the book for it. And that, my friends, is what it all boils down to.

Like Mac said, I write in various genres. Horror, fantasy, sci-fi, thriller, and drama. Not all in the same book though...at least not yet.

[jdkiggins]

Stephen King said something really interesting about the little boy dying, in Cujo--I can't find the exact quote (I'll have to look for it later) but he said something along the lines of: Readers were upset with me for killing [boy's name] and I didn't really plan it--it surprised ME when it happened...but it's what happened.

I took it to mean: It was right for the story.

Of course, Cujo, is one novel Stephen King "barely remembers writing at all."

He mentioned this in his On Writing book. He wrote Cujo when he was putting away a case of sixteen-ounce tallboys a night.

Even with the boy dying, it was still a great book.

Joanne

[jdkiggins]

Dang!:Smack: I never post quick enough. ROFL Kevin beat me.


Joanne

[jdkiggins]

Sometimes sad endings are the best. They might hate you for it, but rest assured they will remember the book for it. And that, my friends, is what it all boils down to.

Like Mac said, I write in various genres. Horror, fantasy, sci-fi, thriller, and drama. Not all in the same book though...at least not yet.

Kevin,
That is so true. Sad endings can also leave the door wide open for a sequel with a happy ending. :)

Let me know when you have that multi-genre book published, I'd like to read it. :)

Joanne

[jdkiggins]

Talk about "bad endings." I'm beginning to get a complex. LOL Either, I'm really slow and late at posting to really old threads, or ??? :Shrug: It seems like I'm a thread ender. :ROFL: :roll: I post, then some threads just seem to die and hang out there with my name staring back at me in internet space. Please, please tell me I don't kill threads. :D :gone: behind the wall of horror for a bit.

Joanne

[Rose]

Let me see if I can help you out, Joanne!

< Quote: [Stephen King] was stoned and drunk throughout the whole book he couldn't ever remember sitting down to write the book. >

What IS it with alcohol and writers/writing? I've never been so drunk I can't remember actually sitting down to write; then again, I've never been so drunk I wrote a bestseller either.

I wonder if it's safe to try this at home? Dare I have TWO glasses of wine tonight...

[MacAllister]

What IS it with alcohol and writers/writing? Honestly, I suspect some writers use alcohol as a shortcut to lowering their inhibitions, and switching off the internal editor.

Needless to say, it's a friggin' terrible idea...

You don't kill threads at all, Joanne--:) I've been on the road for a few days, and not checking in as often as I like.

[Kevin Yarbrough]

Let me see if I can help you out, Joanne!

< Quote: [Stephen King] was stoned and drunk throughout the whole book he couldn't ever remember sitting down to write the book. >

What IS it with alcohol and writers/writing? I've never been so drunk I can't remember actually sitting down to write; then again, I've never been so drunk I wrote a bestseller either.

I wonder if it's safe to try this at home? Dare I have TWO glasses of wine tonight...
I think since writing is such a lonely job that a lot of writers use alcohol/drugs as a way to help them ease the lonliness, or maybe writers share the same gene that makes people addicts? Maybe all of us writers are predisposed to become addicts? Oh God, am I addicted to my Mountain Dew. Let's see.....owwww, three seconds without a drinnk and I have a headache. I am, dang it.

Maybe Mac is right. Maybe writers use alcohol to lower their inhibitions, to get into a state of relaxation where the words flow freely. Maybe, just maybe, that when they are drunk they don't second guess what they write. They just let it flow.

I am going to try and kick back a case of beer and write. If you don't hear from me in a few days I might be in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. If it works I will post what I have on here. Knowing my luck I will pass out on my keyboard and will have nothing but gobbeldy gook.

[maestrowork]

I think lowering one's inhibition or promoting one's creativity is a big thing about drugs, be it alcohol, nicotine, pot, coke, ecstasy, meth, LSD, whatever. David Sederis was hooked on Meth for a while -- it helped with his crazy creativity. Obviously, these drugs have bad effects (long term or short term) on our bodies and minds as well. Personally I have used one or more of these drugs (I won't tell you which, haha!) and they do seem to help with my creativity at that point. And FORTUNATELY, I don't have addictive tendency. ;)

[jdkiggins]

Let me see if I can help you out, Joanne!

< Quote: [Stephen King] was stoned and drunk throughout the whole book he couldn't ever remember sitting down to write the book. >

What IS it with alcohol and writers/writing? I've never been so drunk I can't remember actually sitting down to write; then again, I've never been so drunk I wrote a bestseller either.

I wonder if it's safe to try this at home? Dare I have TWO glasses of wine tonight...

I have no clue what percentage of writers may drink before or during writing.
I don't drink, hell, I have a hard enough time getting my brain to function without screwing it up with alcohol or drugs. :roll:

I'll stick to my tea and coffee, caffeine is bad enough.

Joanne

[jdkiggins]

Oops. Was I allowed to say that h*ll word in here? LOL Sorry. :D


Joanne

[Anatole Ghio]

Alcohol does absolutely nothing for my writing. In fact, writing and drunkedness are a no no for me, as my writing is absolutely awful while intoxicated (I know this is not the case for other writers).

Caffine, on the other hand, does stimulate me mentally and I find my writing is more intelligent, the thoughts more incisive, if I am on a caffine high. I do not use this as a crutch for my writing, and do not try to have any caffine before writing as I find I eventually get the same effect through a couple of re-writes... but I cannot deny what happens to me while I am on a caffine high.

- Anatole

[Richard]

I don't drink, so I can't say if it has any effect on mine.

[NotTooLate]

I'm another one who has no business being in here. But I couldn't help it since I'm interested in where you've strayed.


I think since writing is such a lonely job that a lot of writers use alcohol/drugs as a way to help them ease the lonliness, or maybe writers share the same gene that makes people addicts? Maybe all of us writers are predisposed to become addicts?

This reminds me of an article in the Sept/Oct issue of Pages magazine, entitled (believe it or not) Unhappy endings. Except it was about writers and depression; it also includes bits about dependency. The article argues both sides of which comes first, the depression or the creativity writers have. Very interesting.

David Sederis was hooked on Meth for a while -- it helped with his crazy creativity.
I love the way his messed up mind works -- don't care what it took to get him to write that way.

[MacAllister]

I'm another one who has no business being in here. But I couldn't help it since I'm interested in where you've strayed.

Heh--you are heartily welcomed to the conversation, Not--and just by virtue of being interested in the topic at hand, you are more than entitled to be here.

NOTE TO ANY OTHER LURKERS: If you've ever wondered about ghosts, goblins, boggles, and things that go bump in the night; if you've ever had a nightmare; if you've ever read a King novel; heck, even if you were just chastised once for running with scissors--DON'T be shy, we'd love to hear what you have to say.

:)

[jdkiggins]

I'm another one who has no business being in here. But I couldn't help it since I'm interested in where you've strayed.


This reminds me of an article in the Sept/Oct issue of Pages magazine, entitled (believe it or not) Unhappy endings. Except it was about writers and depression; it also includes bits about dependency. The article argues both sides of which comes first, the depression or the creativity writers have. Very interesting.


I love the way his messed up mind works -- don't care what it took to get him to write that way.

You were interested. I would think that substantiates you being here. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif Glad you dropped in.

Anything King writes, I'll read. Drinking or not, he's still a great master of words.

Joanne

[Wolfyn0911]

As yet another (a non-writing writer as it were) with no business of being here, but desperate to do more than merely lurk, I'll throw my hat (and two cents) into the ring as well:

As to the original thread concerning the "bad" ending, it seems to me to be an American if not Hollywood-esque trait to avoid the sad, ie in most cases realistic ending. A good case in point (since it was already brought up) is Cujo -- the boy dies, not of rabies or mutilation, but of dehydration IN THE BOOK. In the sanitized, glamorized, and (dare I say?) sanctified MOVIE, the mother overcomes the evil beast Cujo (who IMHO never achieves the magnitude of malovelence he earns in the book) AND saves her child -- truly an American outcome.

In addition to the seeming need for a "happy" ending, the only acceptable "bad" endings seem to be the ones that provide continuity, else why would the American public tolerate the evil monster/villain/alien returning from the dead to wreak more havoc on an unsuspecting populace? By the way, was I the only one to recognize a certain spatial similarity to the Predator ship and the hulk that Ripley and the crew of the Nostromo later found on some unnamed celestial body? Just a thought --

[MacAllister]

Wolfyn! We're thrilled you're here. :) Please feel free to join in the discussion.

As yet another (a non-writing writer as it were) with no business of being here, but desperate to do more than merely lurk, I'll throw my hat (and two cents) into the ring as well

Good lord--where is this "no business being here" stuff coming from? It's a place to discuss the horror genre--if you've something to bring to the conversation, then of course you have business being here. And we are all enriched by your presence.

(this goes for the other lurkers out there, too)

I think you have a really valid point about the hollywood happy ending--but just to play devil's advocate: We could look at The Shining--King lets Dick Halloran (Scatman Carrothers in the movie) live, while Kubrick kills him off...

Although admittedly, a Kubrick film is hardly Hollywood typical, so that might be unfair. <g>

[NotTooLate]

Can we place a warning at the top of this thread? What if you haven't read/seen the titles to which we're revealing the endings? Guess I don't need to read Cujo now. ;)

[Wolfyn0911]

ROFL .. ouch .. Sorry about that NotTooLate, I wasn't thinking about that aspect of the discussion -- it's still worth the read however, since you'll get a dimension to the animal that's not possible (at least not CURRENTLY possible) to explore in a movie.

[jdkiggins]

As yet another (a non-writing writer as it were) with no business of being here, but desperate to do more than merely lurk, I'll throw my hat (and two cents) into the ring as well:

As to the original thread concerning the "bad" ending, it seems to me to be an American if not Hollywood-esque trait to avoid the sad, ie in most cases realistic ending. A good case in point (since it was already brought up) is Cujo -- the boy dies, not of rabies or mutilation, but of dehydration IN THE BOOK. In the sanitized, glamorized, and (dare I say?) sanctified MOVIE, the mother overcomes the evil beast Cujo (who IMHO never achieves the magnitude of malovelence he earns in the book) AND saves her child -- truly an American outcome.

In addition to the seeming need for a "happy" ending, the only acceptable "bad" endings seem to be the ones that provide continuity, else why would the American public tolerate the evil monster/villain/alien returning from the dead to wreak more havoc on an unsuspecting populace? By the way, was I the only one to recognize a certain spatial similarity to the Predator ship and the hulk that Ripley and the crew of the Nostromo later found on some unnamed celestial body? Just a thought --

Wolfy,
So glad you joined us. Hope you stick around and join in on more conversations. :)

Joanne

[jdkiggins]

Can we place a warning at the top of this thread? What if you haven't read/seen the titles to which we're revealing the endings? Guess I don't need to read Cujo now. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

Oops, NotTooLate. Sorry about giving away the ending. In the future if I post anything about the content of a book, I'll make sure I add a note before the post. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ ****, DON'T READ THIS.

Hope that doesn't hold you back from visiting the threads again. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

Joanne

[NotTooLate]

Hope that doesn't hold you back from visiting the threads again. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif


Of course not, I'm already hooked!

There was this NY Times article recently that took the care to write a warning similar to "do not read on if you haven't seen..." in the body of an article about Million Dollar Baby. Only, above that there was a caption that said something like: ------- ending causes debate. Awwww man! They gave it away. Silly NY Times.

[NotTooLate]

Oops, now I just ruined it for others. Sorry. But I haven't seen the movie, so I still don't know what really happens.

[Anatole Ghio]

Oops, now I just ruined it for others. Sorry. But I haven't seen the movie, so I still don't know what really happens.

Okay, it's good form to write: spoiler alert, so that any reader who doesn't want the ending spoiled, can skip ahead.

I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby yet, and I have been meaning to... now the ending has just been spoiled for me.

:(

- Anatole

[jdkiggins]

Million Dollar Baby. Only, above that there was a caption that said something like: suicide ending causes debate. Awwww man! They gave it away. Silly NY Times.

:cry: I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, NotTooLate. That was payback, wasn't it? :roll:

Joanne

[NotTooLate]

I'm sorry, no, it wasn't payback; I'm going to go delete it right now. Like I said, I haven't seen the movie, so have no idea what happens.

[maestrowork]

Can we place a warning at the top of this thread? What if you haven't read/seen the titles to which we're revealing the endings? Guess I don't need to read Cujo now. ;)

I don't think Cujo is about the "ending." It's not that kind of books that if you know the ending, you won't enjoy it.

p.s. A lot of people haven't seen Million Dollar Baby yet, since it's just out! Please, be nice. Cujo has been out for over 20 years.

It's like saying "Rosebud" in the Citizen Kane means... then someone comes back and says, you know what, at the end of the Ring Two... ;)

I think we had the same debate earlier when someone accidentally gave away the ending of The Sixth Sense. Someone on this board hasn't seen it yet -- but then again, it's a six-year-old movie...

[jdkiggins]

No problem, NotTooLate. I was ROFL after my comment. I wasn't upset. You didn't have to delete it. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif I'll probably still go to see the movie; I love Clint Eastwood. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif


Joanne

[preyer]

SPOILER ALERT!!!

darth vader is luke's father.

writing-wise, i think if you removed all spelling and vernacular, you'd be hard-pressed to say which nationality a writer is. but, if you did a faithful rendition of some foreign horror movie with american actors, it might seem 'off' in comparison to hollywood's flicks. of course that's a generalization, but it seems to me the european cinema's storytelling method has a different take on things. would hollywood have been able to make 'nosferatu' with an all-american cast and crew? doubtful. we might have been able to do 'shaun of the dead,' though we'd most likely would have had done the ending a little differently (not going to mention the pretty obvious here, since 'shaun' is so new).

i think there's a conflict between the two mediums, not just horror, necessarily, but overall. we tend to be muuuch more obvious. we're not terribly subtle by most standards, lol. that really comes through in movies which have their own sets of standards of storytelling. this is why most people complain about hollywood's lack of imagination, but at the same time it's very much our own damn dumb faults, with the attitude that entertainment should take us other places and not have us leave the theatre depressed. 'if i wanted to be depressed, i wouldn't have paid ten bucks to it. i'd have stayed at home. i go to these things to escape reality!' is a pretty common lament i've heard over the years. kinda ignorant to complain about hollywood's lack of originality *then* want the same type of ending over and over again, eh? originality has not proven to sell tickets.

bad endings? i guess i'd say bad endings are ones that aren't organic with the 400 pages leading up to it, like shifting from mahogany to chrome in the same dining room table.

killing off that character in 'the shining' i think also satisfies the audience's bloodlust. who cares about killing off cameos? i think people want there to be an actual deathtoll in horror movies... as long as it's not the main characters. by the time nicholson's character finally died, weren't we convinced by the end he was worthy of dying? so that was pretty satisfying. bad endings have no resolution: the monster doesn't die, the ghost is dispelled, or the vampire survives for the sequel. 'but, preyer, the vampire's in 'interview with the vampire' live.' is that book supposed to be horror? reading it i got the impression it was a twisted gay romance. maybe i missed the point of it, lol.

has anyone ever actually tried to type or write drunk? it's not easy. in my drug-practicing youth i always had better things to do when high than write stories, lol. today, if i wanted to 'cheat' like that i'd just steal from my dreams.