Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I´m not against the good guys winning but rather against happy and cheese endings.
E.g. Devil´s Advocate, when Reeves chooses death as the only way to foil Pacino´s damned if you, do damned if you don´t master plan, he should have stayed dead, not the rewind to the beginning telling us that the whole movie has been some kind of dream/temptation. Otherwise you are cheapening the ultimate sacrifice with a lame Deus Ex.

M.

sebster wrote:I don't really care who wins, to be perfectly honest. The winner, if there is one, should flow out of the themes of the movie.

Agreed.

Look at a film like The Usual Suspects. Verbal didn't win because he was the bad guy, he won because the film was all about bluffing, and telling people what they want to hear - and throughout the whole film he was telling Chazz Palminteri's character exactly what he wanted to hear. It worked because the resolution fit perfectly with the rest of the movie, not because the winner was a baddie.

One second here, I understand how the plot did not necessarily revolve around 'baddies', but seriously though, what movie did you watch? Soze was a twisted, evil man, who committed unspeakable crimes... seriously though...

I suppose I get your meaning, although separating the two characters at the end, is a pretty tough proposition. I would argue that Verbal succeeded because of his lack of morals, or his need to stick to a persona. Arguing about what evil is in this context though... and how it incorporates itself into the ultimate success of a villain... not sure I want to start that one up really.

Wrexasaur wrote:One second here, I understand how the plot did not necessarily revolve around 'baddies', but seriously though, what movie did you watch? Soze was a twisted, evil man, who committed unspeakable crimes... seriously though...

Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. Soze is certainly a baddie, and because Kint is the same person, then so is Kint.

I was saying that in the Usual Suspects the bad guy won, but that wasn't what made the film. What made the film was the winner logically coming from the themes of the movie. In a film that was all about lies and deception, the winner was the guy who told the best lie.

In zombie moives, I like the I AM LENGEND ending.

lord of the ghosts wrote:In zombie moives, I like the I AM LENGEND ending.

I Am Legend was terrible! Unless you're talking about the book.

As mentioned, in Romero's zombie films, the few that usually survive do so because they are lucky to escape and it usually costs them to do so. It is their small victory. Land of The Dead is probably the most positive ending of all his zombie films as it is the only one in which the good guys (Simon Baker and Co.) get away with more than they started with.

lord of the ghosts wrote:In zombie moives, I like the I AM LENGEND ending.

...While I didn't "dislike" I am legend (the movie),I thought the ending was typical Hollywood.
I much prefered the ending in Richard Mathersons novel (read it if you havn't) .

And..I have to add,while the "infected" in I am legend did serve as a template for zombies ( at least Romero credits Matherson as "inspiring" his zombies),thay are not "zombies" in the "true" sense,for great zombie movie endings,check out Romeros first 3 "dead" films .

FITZZ wrote:

lord of the ghosts wrote:In zombie moives, I like the I AM LENGEND ending.

...While I didn't "dislike" I am legend (the movie),I thought the ending was typical Hollywood.
I much prefered the ending in Richard Mathersons novel (read it if you havn't) .

And..I have to add,while the "infected" in I am legend did serve as a template for zombies ( at least Romero credits Matherson as "inspiring" his zombies),thay are not "zombies" in the "true" sense,for great zombie movie endings,check out Romeros first 3 "dead" films .

Wait, in the book they would literally tear humans apart to get at their blood (well the dead zombie/vampires) as the bacteria they were infected with fed off of blood. Their Modus Operandi were the same even if their reasons were different. He (Matheson) never defined how the living ones attacked (or if they ever did at all) beyond the idea that they were the historical vampires (both type).

Despite the quibble over the details I agree with FITZZ 100%, that book is a must read. Fantastic book!

This is why I like Sin City and the Watchmen. Not necessarily the movies, mind you, but the comic books they were based off of.

GoFenris wrote:
Yes. But the Protagonist should always suffer regardless or else no one will care when he/she finally triumphs. Well, care as much.

When I was actually into writing fiction I toyed with the idea of using the protagonist's 'constituents' as surrogate sufferers as a means of fusing the hero and villain into a single character. Sort of Like God Emperor of Dune without Leto II's psychological issues.

FITZZ wrote:

lord of the ghosts wrote:In zombie moives, I like the I AM LENGEND ending.

...While I didn't "dislike" I am legend (the movie),I thought the ending was typical Hollywood.
I much prefered the ending in Richard Mathersons novel (read it if you havn't) .

And..I have to add,while the "infected" in I am legend did serve as a template for zombies ( at least Romero credits Matherson as "inspiring" his zombies),thay are not "zombies" in the "true" sense,for great zombie movie endings,check out Romeros first 3 "dead" films .

You should read the I AM LENGEND graphic novels.
I disliked the ending in that though, yet the rest of it was the best graphic novel I ever read.

dogma wrote:

GoFenris wrote:
Yes. But the Protagonist should always suffer regardless or else no one will care when he/she finally triumphs. Well, care as much.

When I was actually into writing fiction I toyed with the idea of using the protagonist's 'constituents' as surrogate sufferers as a means of fusing the hero and villain into a single character. Sort of Like God Emperor of Dune without Leto II's psychological issues.

So like Ghola Duncan and (I don't remember her name) plotting Leto II's death, even if it turned out to be within his own plans? Or more along the lines of something like say Superman suffering the death of Lois, Jimmy, Martha and whomever else causing Supes to lash out, as it were?

Interesting idea. I Am Legend (The novel) kind of did this, in a sense. The final reveal turned the whole thing on Neville (Having lost everyone he loved, driven half mad by loneliness and tormented by his zombie neighbor) and he became the "bad guy" within the last few lines of the book. Hell even Paul at the end of Dune. He was hailed as a galactic savior but he knew the truth of what he was and the horror that would come. He even lost some of his friends to his own Muab Dib god-like symbol before the end.

Interesting and somewhat relevant to me. Something to think about that I had not considered, thanks.

I DO!!!!! OH OH PICK ME, PICK ME!!!

Sometimes the good guys are too carboard cutout-like and I wish they'd just get mauled for an interesting ending.

warpcrafter wrote:Stick to George Romero movies. In most of them, the Zombies win.

In most of them, the zombies are the good guys.