Happy endings that aren't happy the moment you think about them - Happily ever after...or is it? Deconstruct the shit out of happy endings in media.

[teriyakiburns]

What I hated so much was that in the movie the ending scene of the public was a protest akin to Kylie Jenner Pepsi commercial. Everyone just peacefully marching up and watching Parliament be blown up. Whereas in the comic the riots are destructive and barbaric, giving the message that Fascism and Anarchy are two side of the same coin.

What annoyed me more was that the movie ended with the destruction of Parliament. The comic ended with the train heading off to blow up 10 Downing Street; Parliament was blown up on page 14 of the novel, mostly as an incidental background event to V meeting and saving Evey. There was more ink expended on the destruction of The Old Bailey (which would make sense, as the justice system had been used to bypass the legislature years previously) than on Parliament. It wasn't important in itself. Just another step in V's goal of sowing anarchy and destruction.

The real problem with the V film is that it was made by the Wachowskis, who transformed it into a poorly disguised critique of the war on terror. There is a scene in the film where a character waxes lyrical about the "beauty" of the language in the quran, which was such a thematic disjoint with the rest of the story that it skullfucks the viewer into either turning the film off, or suspending every last shred of critical thought and clapping like a seal for the goodboy points they earn for accepting such heavy-handed propaganda. And that's what it was. The entire film was the American "progressive left" subverting the entire message the original story to serve their own vendetta.

Making the destruction of Parliament the climax of the film makes for a good trailer moment, but it shows how thoroughly and completely the Wachowskis failed to understand the themes of the story they were adapting. They took a few key elements and wove them into something almost entirely opposite the original message. It was stupid and I hated every moment of it.

 

[AnOminous]

Making the destruction of Parliament the climax of the film makes for a good trailer moment, but it shows how thoroughly and completely the Wachowskis failed to understand the themes of the story they were adapting. They took a few key elements and wove them into something almost entirely opposite the original message. It was stupid and I hated every moment of it.

Sort of like how they completely missed the point of Dick other than some of the mindfuck aspects when ripping him off, and that was their best movie.

Also that's an obvious happy/not happy ending. Okay, you can leave the Matrix now, folks. Welcome to a dead barren world.

 

[sasazuka]

An opposite example: The Road. Sure, the kid just watched his dad rob someone (who tried to steal from them) stark naked in a deadly wasteland to a certain miserable death, and then die himself, but he encounters a new group of people. It's subtle but there are signs of hope. Odds are still not good at all, but there are still good people in the world who care about life, shown by the fact they have a dog that they did not eat, and were willing to help a stranger (something that does not happen anywhere else in the film).

Another important thing about The Road ending is that the boy is in a region with a more hospitable climate for survival compared to where he left (do they ever specify regions in that movie? I know the early part of the movie was shot in rural Pennsylvania but it wasn't necessarily set there). Even if a national government isn't reestablished, if there are enough of the "good" people with agricultural skills, they should at least be able to establish a safe city.

 

[AnOminous]

Even if a national government isn't reestablished, if there are enough of the "good" people with agricultural skills, they should at least be able to establish a safe city.

There's a strong suggestion plants can't even grow any more. There's nothing edible and all the trees are dead. Maybe this is temporary.

 

[sasazuka]

There's a strong suggestion plants can't even grow any more. There's nothing edible and all the trees are dead. Maybe this is temporary.

I thought that was true of where they left but not where they ended up? I dunno, maybe the book explains it better.

 

[AnOminous]

I thought that was true of where they left but not where they ended up? I dunno, maybe the book explains it better.

No, things remained really bad everywhere. Things were just really bad. There were no fields of wheat. Just the slight trace of hope in what otherwise appeared to be utter doom.

 

[SteelPlatedHeart]

In the script for the film they were going to have two trucks pass by him right after he offed his family. First truck would have the woman who fled early in the film to rescue her children whom were alone. Second truck would have the rest of the survivors of the grocery store go by and see that he shot and killed his family and friends. And that the crazy doomsday woman was right that they all should have stayed in the store. But the actors and actresses from the grocery store scenes wrapped filming and left and they didn't want to pay to get them all back just to shoot a ten second scene.

Okay, I realize I’m late on this, and maybe this is the joke you’re making, but…that’s the ending of the film. The sound he head that made him shoot his friends and kid was the army clearing things out, the trucks drive by with survivors, and you specifically see that lady from the beginning who wandered out into the mist to get to her kids, with her kids. Doesn’t exactly have the survivors from the store, but it’s pretty heavily implied.

Steven King even called it a way better ending than the book. Course he’s a dumbass with a huge ego, but still…

 

[Super De Quico]

Super Mario Bros movies, both the Dreamworks one and the 1993 live-action.

So the plumbers got themselves Isekai'd to 1984 and the vidya world itself, they beat up Bowser to oblivion but the gate that links both worlds are still there.

Even with the bad guys out of comission, they still have to deal with goombas'n sheeit.

 

[Calandrino]

I agree, but she was also severely damaged by her dad molesting her.

Well, she raped a retarded man who was like a brother to her, then tricked him into raising the son of some unidentified roadie. With the benefit of hindsight, she deserved to be molested.

 

[Hijo de Dang Woodchucks!]

I watched 2/3's of the Dark Knight trilogy recently, and honestly, the first time I saw rises, I wasn't entirely covinced by the ending, and I think I realized why this time.

Bruce just left the job of being Batman to a random cop. Sure, Blake might be slightly more badass than the regular cop, but he doesn't have the utterly ridiculous training that Bruce does. Will he have the backing of Fox and Wayne Enterprises? I think there were a few details we could have gotten cleared up just to be sure.

 

[Overly Serious]

I'm surprised I've never replied to this thread before. One that comes immediately to mind is Bryan Singer's Superman Returns. Despite some good cinematography and Brandon Routh actually be both a pretty good Superman and excellent Clark Kent, the script is deeply lacking in self-awareness. Specifically both Clark and Lois (especially Lois) come across as awful, awful people.

So spoilers, obviously, but Superman has been absent for years and in the meantime Lois has gotten married and has a kid. No great shock here but the kid turns out to be Superman's. Only she's never told this to her husband (played by the Cyclops dude from the early X-Men movies). Her husband is loyal, supportive, movie-star handsome and a successful pilot and passably well-off. We see nothing but goodness and support from him in the movie. And in a dramatic scene where the city is collapsing, HE goes directly to save Lois whilst Superman prioritises dealing with buildings, etc. Nothing morally wrong with Superman doing that so much as it's just one more illustration of how Lois's husband is everything any woman could hope for in a husband. And she deceives him into thinking her child is his. I mean just the implications of this mean either she was involved with Superman at the same time as him or she seduced him almost immediately after Superman left the planet and then tricked him into thinking she was pregnant with his child. Oh, and she and Superman also go around for seductive moonlit flights when he returns which iirc she denies to him. Meanwhile Superman uses his super-hearing to listen in to their private conversations in their kitchen whilst hovering in the night sky above.

So anyway, to the actual ending. Lois ends up still living with Cyclops but now her son also knows his real father is Superman. And the movie ends with Superman letting himself in at night through the house's skylight window to spend quality time with his son. There's is nothing to indicate otherwise that Lois is going to keep fooling around with Superman and Superman is going to start playing around with his son all under this poor guy's roof whilst everybody else close to him keeps this secret.

It's amazing how the director is blind to his heroes' deeply immoral behaviour. When the movie ended all I was thinking was - that poor dude married to Lois. Also, and I have to add this in whenever I talk about the movie, Superman's dog is overjoyed to see his master again after the years away from Earth and comes bounding up to Clark with the ball in his mouth. To which Clark immediately picks up the dog's ball, hurls it into stratosphere and this poor dog is just sitting there going "but... my ball!"

Brandon Routh is great. Script is awful.

 

[Safir]

Forrest Gump is the classic example. Retard gets saddled with an AIDS-riddled whore and her bastard child which she claims is his but probably isn't. She dies and now, best case scenario, he's raising a child by himself. Somehow this is portrayed as a good thing.

This is realistically the best outcome for him (if the child is AIDS-free) -- he wasn't going to pull a normal woman anyway. Whore dies and can't exploit him or break his heart, child has someone who'll care for him, Forrest has someone who'll care for him, child isn't retarded. Without the whore, he'd never have a family.

It's a short term happy ending. The real question is how realistically he can keep this up until this starts to eat up at his patience and sanity. Good fucking luck raising a child in a healthy environment where they gotta be told mommy will forget them and they gotta bring her up to speed every morning.

It's just not a sustainable lifestyle.

There's an IRL guy who does this, Steve Curto. His wife Camre is not quite all there but she got better.

 

[The Nothingness]

Daybreakers ends with the surviving characters knowing how to change vampires back into humans. However, it's never really told how other nations are handling the blood shortage. Perhaps countries like Russia and China are still hostile and, having develop their own blood substitute, would be against curing their general population.

 

[The handsome tard]

Bruce just left the job of being Batman to a random cop. Sure, Blake might be slightly more badass than the regular cop, but he doesn't have the utterly ridiculous training that Bruce does. Will he have the backing of Fox and Wayne Enterprises? I think there were a few details we could have gotten cleared up just to be sure.

I guess you could headcanon it and say Bruce left some training programs for Blake to train himself into at least a third of what he could do.

Honestly the ending was meant to be seen more symbolic than literally. It was just a "Bruce 'dies' but Batman goes on" sort of ending.

Honestly, Nolan Batman is not a bad batman but he fails on the psychological need that Bruce has to be Batman. Nolan Batman wanted to retire all the time but he kept getting dragged back in, while most versions of Batman cant stop being Batman because it is part of who they were since the death of their parents.

Say whatever you want about the Snyder version, he did nail how Bruce's love/hate relationship with that suit.



Thats the face of someone that hates how this suit completes him.

 

[The handsome tard]

Daybreakers ends with the surviving characters knowing how to change vampires back into humans. However, it's never really told how other nations are handling the blood shortage. Perhaps countries like Russia and China are still hostile and, having develop their own blood substitute, would be against curing their general population.

The movie is a good example why vampires taking over the world is a bad fucking idea for them and its best to rule from the shadows.

Eventually the blood will run out.

 

[(((I am NOT a jew)))]

Silver Lining's Playbook
Basically for the same reasons as Forrest Gump, just with an autist instead of a retard.
Bradley Coopers' character gets the girl and gets to move on from his ex. Problem is said girl is BPD incarnate, has manipulated him throughout the entire film, and there's no attempt at either of them to essentially say they need to work on eachothers' problems.
The literal message of the movie is that sometimes you need someone equally as crazy as you to balance your crazy out. Which I don't have to explain why is a terrible idea.
An autistic dude with recurring trauma gets the borderline girl. What could possibly go wrong?