Originally Posted by J Diddy:
Then by all means, defend the ending. Someone saying I'm stupid because I didn't like the ending isn't defending the ending. It's trying to strip away credibility from me in hopes that my statement, still standing, will be less credible because it was made by a less credible person.
I didn't intend for my statement to be so cookie cutter cut and dry. I think some of what a director does can be considered art. I think that most of the artistic context of a movie goes to the writer though.
As someone who has directed a film from a script, both are art. The writer's "suggestions" for shots - if included at all - are not always taken. They're suggestions for the screenwriter's vision. They are not always the same.
But a director often has control over the shots, lighting, casting, music... it's all his job, which is why he gets such a major credit for creating the film. The director also helps each actor in his vision, oftentimes garnering nuances to a performance that another director could not have done.
I'll give you one example, that I think personifies this argument: Alfred Hitchcock's version of Psycho vs. Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho.
Van Sant kept true to Hitchcock's vision, creating a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's film, yet Hitch's version is universally accepted as a great piece of film, while Van Sant's work is seen as total crap.
The same can be said for countless remakes where the same script is used yet different results are seen on film, but the Psycho example, I think, is the best. Not only was the script the same, but so were the shots, and even the original Bernard Hermann score was adapted by Danny Elfman for the remake. [Reply]
Originally Posted by T.B.A.:
The thread wasn't started that way, but a few have indicated that if you didn't like the ending you must be a non function idiot. Being pompous and condiscending is not likely to garner any ones support.
Oh, and Midnight Vulture liked the ending.....so it must suck.
Yes, I can see where someone would think that a thread starting with 'Stupiest ****ing Ending Ever' would incite intellectual discourse. It was such a well thought out argument. [Reply]
Originally Posted by blaise:
Yes, I can see where someone would think that a thread starting with 'Stupiest ****ing Ending Ever' would incite intellectual discourse. It was such a well thought out argument.
With all due respect that was my opinion. Now if the thread had opened with 'Stupidest fucking ending ever and if you don't agree then you're a moron' your point would be valid.
That being said, I didn't post it as an argument. I got more than I ever wanted out of this thread. Learned a little, confirmed a little, and rethought a few things. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!:
As someone who has directed a film from a script, both are art. The writer's "suggestions" for shots - if included at all - are not always taken. They're suggestions for the screenwriter's vision. They are not always the same.
But a director often has control over the shots, lighting, casting, music... it's all his job, which is why he gets such a major credit for creating the film. The director also helps each actor in his vision, oftentimes garnering nuances to a performance that another director could not have done.
I'll give you one example, that I think personifies this argument: Alfred Hitchcock's version of Psycho vs. Gus Van Sant's version of Psycho.
Van Sant kept true to Hitchcock's vision, creating a shot-for-shot remake of Hitchcock's film, yet Hitch's version is universally accepted as a great piece of film, while Van Sant's work is seen as total crap.
The same can be said for countless remakes where the same script is used yet different results are seen on film, but the Psycho example, I think, is the best. Not only was the script the same, but so were the shots, and even the original Bernard Hermann score was adapted by Danny Elfman for the remake.
Originally Posted by T.B.A.:
No...no...see there, you are wrong. They can help, IF you have....decent cognitive function's:-)
Hey now. We were in a good spot last night. That is NOT what I said, sir. :-) It was hyperbole, but I said that anyone with decent cognitive function would see that the movie, by denying viewer's a satisfying-in-the-typical-way ending, is making a comment on the harshness of reality and also a comment on the nature of movie narrative. What I said made no claim whatsoever that anyone with decent cognitive function had to "like" or "Understand" the ending. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
That ending made me want to beat the shit out of somebody. It sucked dick.
Would you have liked The Godfather if Al Pacino had been killed offscreeen?
Would you have liked Unforgiven if it had ended with Clint Eastwood getting sideswiped off his horse by an out-of-control wagon?
Would you have liked Seven if the box hadn't been delivered because the delivery truck broke down?
FUCK THAT ENDING.
Funny how none of the people who continue to defend this piece of crap like it was their sister's honor has ever responded to any of these points.
Was Coppola a sell-out for bringing The Godfather to sensible conclusion? Was Unforgiven not art? Should I toss my Seven DVD in the trash because Fincher dared to actually include all seven deadly sins?
I guess we should just have a random ending generator for movies, and only then will they be worth watching. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
Funny how none of the people who continue to defend this piece of crap like it was their sister's honor has ever responded to any of these points.
Was Coppola a sell-out for bringing The Godfather to sensible conclusion? Was Unforgiven not art? Should I toss my Seven DVD in the trash because Fincher dared to actually include all seven deadly sins?
I guess we should just have a random ending generator for movies, and only then will they be worth watching.
Frankly, fraz, it would depend on how it was done. You can't compare such things when we don't know how it would have been handled. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!:
Frankly, fraz, it would depend on how it was done. You can't compare such things when we don't know how it would have been handled.
So if Seven had ended with Spacey screaming over and over, WHERE'S MY PACKAGE?????, you wouldn't have been sitting in the audience wondering "What the hell is this?" This is basically the ending the Coens gave us. Horseshit. Don't poke me in the eye and tell me its art. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frazod:
So if Seven had ended with Spacey screaming over and over, WHERE'S MY PACKAGE?????, you wouldn't have been sitting in the audience wondering "What the hell is this?" This is basically the ending the Coens gave us. Horseshit. Don't poke me in the eye and tell me its art.
If it was handled in that manner, yes. To say that equates to the ending in question is utterly ridiculous, and I'm fairly certain you know that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!:
If it was handled in that manner, yes. To say that equates to the ending in question is utterly ridiculous, and I'm fairly certain you know that.
Wrong. The movie leads up to a climax that never happens, and then throws in some random act at the end for shits and grins. As I have said before, if I want to see pointless random crap I'll look out the window. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Reaper16:
Hey now. We were in a good spot last night. That is NOT what I said, sir. :-) It was hyperbole, but I said that anyone with decent cognitive function would see that the movie, by denying viewer's a satisfying-in-the-typical-way ending, is making a comment on the harshness of reality and also a comment on the nature of movie narrative. What I said made no claim whatsoever that anyone with decent cognitive function had to "like" or "Understand" the ending.
