Good Day everyone,

I thought it might be fun to discuss movies that have weird or cryptic endings... For you spoiler fans, be forewarned that a movie may be discussed here you haven't seen. Any movie is fair game in this discussion.

I have a couple of movies that I have seen over and over on DVD and for the life of me, I can't understand the intended endings. I will briefly explain the the movie and then ask what did the ending mean.....So, here goes and lets have some fun with this. See below past the spoiler space. x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
My first movie select is ZARDOZ. After Zed brings down the shield and his people begin killing off the immortals...I don't understand the ending where Zed and a woman immortal hide in a cave and seem to accelerate time until they end up as skeletons. What happened here?


My second choice is "The Nineth Gate". After the owner of the rare books retrieves his book from the satanic group and also the pages of the other 8 books. He attempts to open the "gates" to call forth Satan. When this fails, our hero finds out that one of the pages is a fake and finds the real page. He is last seen walking towards a house/church ??? with the sunlight in the background. What is happening here??????

Anyone Know?

ps. I take it that the blond girl throught the movie that our hero had sex with is a demon, not a guardian angel

My first movie select is ZARDOZ. After Zed brings down the shield and his people begin killing off the immortals...I don't understand the ending where Zed and a woman immortal hide in a cave and seem to accelerate time until they end up as skeletons. What happened here?


Remember, ZARDOZ is a fairy tale, and how do fairy tales end? And they lived happily ever after.

David.

Is Dekard a replicant, or isn't he?

He wasn't in the book...

Can anybody explain the ending of Phase IV? I remember seeing this in the seventies, and thinking the ant-cam shots were pretty cool. But at the end, when the remaining scientist and the girl sink into the dirt and raise up again nekkid, I was totally lost.

Is Dekard a replicant, or isn't he?

It depends on whether you're talking about the book or the film. It also depends on which version of the film you're talking about.

For some reason Ridley Scott thought it would be a good idea for Deckard to be a replicant, but Dick clearly intended for him to be a human.

Can anybody explain the ending of Phase IV? I remember seeing this in the seventies, and thinking the ant-cam shots were pretty cool. But at the end, when the remaining scientist and the girl sink into the dirt and raise up again nekkid, I was totally lost.

My interpretation of the this ending was that the ants had demonstrated that they were smart enough to gain control of the situation between themselves and the humans. They left these two alive possibly to breed them as a slave community for their own agenda, maybe use them to communicate with the human civilization, ...perhaps they recognized that these two humans were sympathetic to the ants and they were spared death. Clearly, the movie endede by establishing the ants as being sentient, merciful, intelligent and were drawing a line in the sand so to speak about how far humans could go on this earth.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly the movie it is if it made perfect sense.

One of my favorite ambiguous endings comes at the conclusion of "Three Days of the Condor."

A CIA official played by Cliff Robertson has just learned Condor (Robert Redford) has provided the New York Times with damning evidence of widespread corruption within the intelligence community.

The difference between a happy ending and a downer ending depends on how you interpret the final exchange of dialogue between the two adversaries...

ROBERTSON: You stupid son of a -----... you've just done more damage than you know.

REDFORD: Oh, I hope so.

Redford starts to walk away. Robertson calls out to him:

ROBERTSON: Condor... how do you know they'll publish it?

REDFORD: They'll publish it.

ROBERTSON: How do you know?

We can tell from the expression on Redford's face that he doesn't know... and neither do we.

It’s great moment that beautifully sums up the feeling of paranoia and powerlessness which gripped the nation during the post Watergate/ Viet-Nam era.

Terrific stuff.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly the movie it is if it made perfect sense.

This is a great example. At least from the book/novel this is what happened. The aliens who captured Bowman by setting a trap that only a spacefaring race from Earth could trigger, transported bowman to their home world This race is so advance that they are immortal and wanted to study how life begins and evolves. They have no physical form. They took bowman and allowed him to continue his life while they studied him. The hotel room is an environment they took from bowman's mind to provide him with a familiar surrounding. At the moment of death, they transormed him into a "star child" and expanded his mind to allow him the means to travel like themselves. Hence in the movie 2010, we see what bowman decided to do. He returened to earth, visited his mother, able to assume different forms, prevented the Russian/US crew from learning/interfering with the life developong on Europa and created a new sun from Jupiter. This race of aliens were "caretakers" of the galaxy.

2001: A Space Odyssey. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly the movie it is if it made perfect sense.

Heh, you beat me to it.

2001-I read the book, makes sense to me. Actually, a beautiful ending.

2001-I read the book, makes sense to me. Actually, a beautiful ending.

Clarke and Kubrick each had slightly different takes on the story. When viewed together, you get the whole picture. Great stuff. :thumbsup:

I think, no matter how you look at the ending of movie of 2001 (on the script of which the novel is based--not the other way around in this case), you have to think that Bowman has somehow transformed into something greater than human and that mankind is, in a sense, just an embryo to what we can become.

It is a great ending even if somewhat vague on the specifics.

on the script of which the novel is based--not the other way around in this case.

That's not quite accurate. The novel and screenplay were written concurrently, with Kubrick and Clark bouncing ideas off of each other. The novel was supposed to be released first, but Kubrick kept "delaying" signing off on it so that there wouldn't be time to print and release the book before the film premire.

It's probably the only time a novel and screenplay have been written that way.

That's not quite accurate. The novel and screenplay were written concurrently, with Kubrick and Clark bouncing ideas off of each other. The novel was supposed to be released first, but Kubrick kept "delaying" signing off on it so that there wouldn't be time to print and release the book before the film premire.

It's probably the only time a novel and screenplay have been written that way.

This is true. both the novel and the movie were based on a short story by Author C. Clarke named "The Sentinel". The short story was about a small, glass looking pyramid found on the moon's surface protected by a force field. When the shield was finally penetrated, the alarm signal was sounded and the pyramid went silent leaving the astronauts wondering what they had done. This is how the short story ended.

That's not quite accurate. The novel and screenplay were written concurrently, with Kubrick and Clark bouncing ideas off of each other. The novel was supposed to be released first, but Kubrick kept "delaying" signing off on it so that there wouldn't be time to print and release the book before the film premire.

It's probably the only time a novel and screenplay have been written that way.

Thanks for the clarification. :thumbsup:

Y'know, I've never been able to figure out the ending of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" - what were all those explosions supposed to signify?

Y'know, I've never been able to figure out the ending of Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" - what were all those explosions supposed to signify?

That was the Soviet doomsday device going off.

The strange thing was that after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was found out that the Soviets really had a doomsday device. It was called "The Dead Hand", and was designed to launch nukes after 30 days (I think) if the Soviets lost a nuclear war.

David.

That was the Soviet doomsday device going off.

The strange thing was that after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was found out that the Soviets really had a doomsday device. It was called "The Dead Hand", and was designed to launch nukes after 30 days (I think) if the Soviets lost a nuclear war.

David.

Now, that's just ornery!

That was the Soviet doomsday device going off.

Yeah, thanks - I was just kidding David!

But for true ambiguity, we need look no further than "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" - were the aliens evil or not? Left ambiguous purposely, I think.

For all the talk of "2001's" famously ambiguous ending, I've always found it to be fairly straightforward.

Granted some of the imagery is abstract, but even upon my first viewing I was able to piece together the central idea, i.e. that a man had gone on a journey, encountered something magical, and been reborn. The fact that I didn’t understand the whys and wherefores of this transformation seemed only natural; after all, I was a six-year-old kid from Oklahoma City… what did I know about the mysteries of the universe?

Years later, when I read Clarke's novel, his explanation of the ending left me with an odd mixture of understanding and disappointment. As logical, rational, and well thought out as the exposition is, the information it provides dilutes much of the mystery, and as a result the end of the book feels less majestic than that of the film; mundane almost (and, in a weirdly counter-intuitive way, somehow less authentic).

Some people love to have things explained to them, but I’ve never been one of them.

That was the Soviet doomsday device going off.

Technically speaking, I don't believe Kubrick intended for the closing montage of the Atomic Age's Greatest Hits to be read as a literal depiction of the Doomsday device's detonation. Why spend the time and money creating a tricky FX shot when you can convey the same plot point in a cheaper, more artful way?

...for true ambiguity, we need look no further than "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" - were the aliens evil or not? Left ambiguous purposely, I think.

Interesting. What gives you the impression that the aliens may have been "evil?"

Interesting. What gives you the impression that the aliens may have been "evil?"

That song !

Good point. :)

Technically speaking, I don't believe Kubrick intended for the closing montage of the Atomic Age's Greatest Hits to be read as a literal depiction of the Doomsday device's detonation. Why spend the time and money creating a tricky FX shot when you can convey the same plot point in a cheaper, more artful way?



If you are talking about the footage of the bombs going off, no effects there, just stock footage of nuclear tests. Extremely cost effective. :lol:



Interesting. What gives you the impression that the aliens may have been "evil?"



Perhaps the fact that they kidnapped people. Held them for decades ( Earth time) until everyone they have know has died, or aged, and everything that they have known has completely changed, or is gone. Then they dump them into, what is for them an alien world.

If not evil, then horribly callous, and cruel.

David.

Cruelty is relative. Just ask God. ;)

Maybe it's just me, but I was left with the impression that our contact with the E.T.'s boded well for the future of the human race.

Cruelty is relative. Just ask God. ;)


I tried, but so far no answer. Not knowing God's frame of reference for time, but having a sneaking suspisicion on how long it may be.....I am probably in for quite a wait on my reply. :D

Besides, I don't think of the ETs as a deity, they seem to have a good idea of how the human race operates to be able to deal with man. I think that they were just jackin' with us. :lol:


David.

ET was just a mental case who had a simple job as a gardener. Combined with Humans attitude of 'all aliens are advanced' and it's a hilarious comedy.

Don't knock gardening. Voltaire spent the latter half of his life tending garden, and he was a pretty advanced guy by any standard. :)

Years later, when I read Clarke's novel, his explanation of the ending left me with an odd mixture of understanding and disappointment. As logical, rational, and well thought out as the exposition is, the information it provides dilutes much of the mystery, and as a result the end of the book feels less majestic than that of the film; mundane almost (and, in a weirdly counter-intuitive way, somehow less authentic).It is, however, typical of Clarke's pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts approach to science-fiction writing. And how could Kubrick’s metaphorical imagery be translated to the printed page?. . . What gives you the impression that the aliens may have been "evil?" Perhaps the fact that they kidnapped people. Held them for decades ( Earth time) until everyone they have know has died, or aged, and everything that they have known has completely changed, or is gone. Then they dump them into, what is for them an alien world.

If not evil, then horribly callous, and cruel.Or maybe just misunderstood — like the Talosians, the Horta, the Gorns, Klaatu . . .Don't knock gardening. Voltaire spent the latter half of his life tending garden, and he was a pretty advanced guy by any standard. :)
[IMG-LEFT]http://www.petersellersappreciationsociety.com/Pictures/FCharacter/ChanceTheGardiner.jpg[/IMG-LEFT]

"All is well – and all will be well – in the garden."

I don't think of the ETs as a deity

Spielberg didn't include that "Here comes the King" TV jingle for nothing.

Just as the aliens in "2001" and "ET" can be viewed as metaphorical deities, so too can Puck & the gang in "Close Encounters."

...how could Kubrick’s metaphorical imagery be translated to the printed page?

Have you ever read Pynchon?

Honestly, my intention wasn't to bash Clarke. I've read and enjoyed many of his novels and essays. Still, I regard "2001" the film to be a work of art, whereas I don't believe "2001" the novel rises to that occasion.

Spielberg didn't include that "Here comes the King" TV jingle for nothing.


I'm not familiar with that jingle, at least not by name. Was it a local, or national ad?


Just as the aliens in "2001" and "ET" can be viewed as metaphorical deities, so too can Puck & the gang in "Close Encounters."


I was thinking of the ET's in Close Encounters, not ET. That is a seperate series of rants. :)

And do not get me started on that monster Klaatu. Message of peace my eye! His message of peace was, do as we say or DIE! :lol:

David.

David.

Rob, I'm not sure about 2001:the novel as art, but as a teenager, I cried when reading the finale to "Chidhood's End".

Spielberg didn't include that "Here comes the King" TV jingle for nothing.

Just as the aliens in "2001" and "ET" can be viewed as metaphorical deities, so too can Puck & the gang in "Close Encounters."...
Aha. That explains tribble worship.

I'm not familiar with that jingle, at least not by name. Was it a local, or national ad?

I was refering to the not-so-subtle TV screen insert of the Budwiser beer ad during the scene in which Neary is constructing the Devil's Tower in his den.

"Here comes the king, here comes the big number one..."

Remember?

Rob, I'm not sure about 2001:the novel as art, but as a teenager, I cried when reading the finale to "Chidhood's End".

Ditto. All things considered, "Childhood's End" is probably Clarke's best novel.

Speaking of long time favorite authors, were any of Robert Heinlien's novels (besides puppet masters) ever made into film? I particularly liked "Between Planets", "Time for the Stars, "Starman Jones", and "The Number of the Beast"

Cruelty is relative. Just ask God. ;)

Maybe it's just me, but I was left with the impression that our contact with the E.T.'s boded well for the future of the human race.


Yep, especially since no anal probes were involved.

Speaking of long time favorite authors, were any of Robert Heinlien's novels (besides puppet masters) ever made into film? I particularly liked "Between Planets", "Time for the Stars, "Starman Jones", and "The Number of the Beast"

Starship Troopers was based on his book, which I haven't read in 30 years or so, so I'm not sure how closely it follows.

Speaking of long time favorite authors, were any of Robert Heinlien's novels (besides puppet masters) ever made into film? I particularly liked "Between Planets", "Time for the Stars, "Starman Jones", and "The Number of the Beast"
Surprisingly few. (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0374423/)

I know there was talk about an adaption of STRANGER IN A STRANGE LAND in the '80s starring Tom Hanks, but of course that never came about.

Of course, the problem with Heinlein is that much of his post-STRANGER work is unfilmable. There isn't a lot of dramatic potential in someone sitting around and lecturing on their philosophy of life. (Yes I know, an overly-simplified exageration, but there are some major problems in this later work.)

I wonder if the episodes of "Out There" still exist. I always thought "Ordeal in Space" would make a terrific short film or TV episode. There is also a short work of his I think would have a lot of potential as a movie. The name escapes me, but the premise was that anyone committing a crime could either undergo psychological treatment, or travel to a section of the country isolated by an energy barrier. The protagonist chooses the latter and discovers it isn't the anarchist utopia he assumed.

Yep, especially since no anal probes were involved.


What do you think that finger was for?

Starship Troopers was based on his book, which I haven't read in 30 years or so, so I'm not sure how closely it follows.

Oooh yeah, forgot about that one. I remember reading something about the effects people not being able to properly do the armor suits to make it look believable so they just went with regular GI Joe gear.

I never got the ending to Planet of The Apes. How'd the Statue of Liberty end up on that planet?

What Statue of Liberty?

I never got the ending to Planet of The Apes. How'd the Statue of Liberty end up on that planet?

I assume you mean the Charleton Heston version. That statue of liberty was on the planet because the planet was the future Earth,.....after an atomic war. The shorelines evidently underwent some changes.

Oh! :eek:




SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

Oh! :eek:




SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!

Barf, Barf, Baarrrrff !!!! Where's my Milk of Mylanta???? :freak:

Ok, if Gabriel Byrne's character was really dead, who the heck was Keyser Soze??

And I saw this old b&w movie the other night, Orson Welles was in it, there was some business with a sled at the end?

Ok, if Gabriel Byrne's character was really dead, who the heck was Keyser Soze??

And I saw this old b&w movie the other night, Orson Welles was in it, there was some business with a sled at the end?:lol: :lol: :lol:

You kill me, Phil!

Thank God I wasn't drinking something when I read that!

I never got the ending to Planet of The Apes. How'd the Statue of Liberty end up on that planet?

Thank God I wasn't drinking something when I read that!

Oh, I get it now....Duh, I feel like Kelso right now. :freak: