Happy or not happy endings ... thoughts?

[James Coote]

Hi,

Re: The Golden Compass. Yes the books are a trilogy and a trilogy was planned for the movies as well. Sales in the US didn't pan out well enough, And so even though later sales around the rest of the world, and then dvds put the first movie into serious profit, the sequels were quietly shelved.

The producers claimed it was because of the anti catholic church vibe of the movie, but that was really just an excuse. It's all about the dollars.

Cheers, Greg.

You can't have read the books and not at least get an inclining the story might just be ever so slightly anti-religious. I get the impression film studios don't really regard the rest of the world as important, aside to make up a bit of extra cash. In their eyes, if it fails in the US, it has failed

 

[Mouse]

I thought the ending of HDM was spot on. Long time since I've read it, but you've got to remember that these characters are children.

 

[MemoryTale]

I recently read HDM all the way through, and even as an athiest I felt beaten over the head with an anti-church theme. Anyone reading the novels couldn't have missed it, so if that were a problem then Golden Compass would never have been comissioned.

As to endings, I like mostly happy endings. It could be an ending where the world is saved, but the protagonists don't get everything they want into the bargain, or they have to sacrifice something in order to get the happy ending, or even just be left with a nagging worry they're not so different from the murderous warlord they've just gunned down. Life doesn't end as soon as you get the man/girl of your dreams or win a tournament or whatever, and it's nice to be left aware that the events of a book is only a portion of what these characters will live through. Apart from the ones that died to get there. I'll stop talking before I start rambling now.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

As long as it suits the tone of the rest of the story, I don't mind either way, but I get very disappointed if it changes. For example, int he movie A.I., the tone of it was very dark, the outside world a nice contrast to the 'perfect' home life David had and was striving to return to. In my view, the end should have (highlight for spoilers) been him sitting staring at the Blue Fairy underwater for eternity, resulting in a bleak statement that we can never go back. But no, we had to have super evolved humans show up and schmaltz it all up for us. Though many say that the ending was what Kubrick always envisioned, Speilberg's touch was all over it, which undermined the rest of the movie (for me, at least).

 

[Sapheron]

Shame on every Brit calling it (unless you refer to the movie specifically) The Golden Compass! Northern Lights is the name! Silly American spelling mistakes, I can forgive the odd u missing or an e and an r the opposite way round, but to use two entirely different words?!

Ahem. Anyway. I'm also a fan of HDM. Quite liked the end, though I wondered why they couldn't cut a gate, immediately shank the spectre that it made, pop through to say hello to grandma, then go back through and shut it behind them. Thus, live together, be happy, and not destroy the world(s). Perhaps that was addressed and I've just forgotten.

A bad ending is easy to write, but causes a lot less anger (on my part) if it's a happy one. Bad sad endings are often terrible things, and sad endings seem far more prone to being bad than happy ones do.

Good endings are neutral, if it's good it can be sad or happy, and I like them the same.

Exceptional endings can be either, but seem a lot more commonly to be sad ones. Perhaps this shows a slight bias towards them on my part, or perhaps it's just easier to get a real impact from a sad ending. I don't know.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

They probably thought Americans wouldn't know what the northern lights were, much as they assumed that they wouldn't be able to understand what a Philosopher's Stone was either (though I'm guessing one or two of them had read the book when the first film came out). Not knocking Americans, but rather the studio suits that consider such asinine, arrogant and pointless things in their pursuit of money.

 

[nightdreamer]

And breaking character... I still beloved one or the other would have changed dimensions. Their reasons were so infuriatingly stupid...

Absolutely! As I recall, it was something stupid about only being able to open portals so many times, which was not foreshadowed, made no sense from the story, and was just dredged up, as far as I can tell, to have an excuse to separate lovers. It was so lame. Make me soooooo angry.

 

[JoanDrake]

I agree with Hex. I don't read a story to be made miserable. I disagree with Mouse about the ending of Amber Spyglass. It went out of its way to make the ending sad for no good reason I could see.

HDM btw, was described by its author as "Paradise Lost seeing Heaven as a Republic" so it could be seen as anti-religious or not, depending on whether you think a good sovereign can be the best ruler or just hate kings on general principals.

The worst kind of ending is neither happy or sad but simply not an ending at all. This is what they did with LOST. Most every viewer had guessed they were in Purgatory by the second episode but the writers maintained it WASN'T purgatory for six years, so we watched to see what it was and then... I realise they were writing a work of fiction, yes, but I still don't think the authors have a right to lie ABOUT the story. Basically the ratings were declining so they just canceled it in advance, loose ends be damned.

And strangely, the most satisfying ending I ever saw was almost exactly the same circumstance. The Prisoner ended because they just didnt have the ratings to continue. Its ending didn't make any sense either BUT the show had never really made sense anyway and they answered all the questions. They answered them with MORE questions, that is true, but they answered them nonetheless

 

[MemoryTale]

From what I remember, the reason they couldn't both live in the same dimension after Amber Spyglass was because living in the wrong dimension gives you a dramatically shortened lifespan.

 

[Venusian Broon]

The worst kind of ending is neither happy or sad but simply not an ending at all. This is what they did with LOST. Most every viewer had guessed they were in Purgatory by the second episode but the writers maintained it WASN'T purgatory for six years, so we watched to see what it was and then... I realise they were writing a work of fiction, yes, but I still don't think the authors have a right to lie ABOUT the story.

A quick aside - then I'll shut up about it. No you've got it wrong JD and not understood it They only were in an 'afterlife' of sorts in the very last series and then for only half the time (they were the flash forward-forwards) They were not in purgatory when on the island. That was 'reality'. So the writers were completely correct and were not lying I'm afraid.

Yours cordially,

A Lost nut

 

[Mouse]

I hated the end of Lost with a passion. (And I was also a massive Lost fan - and an admin on two of the biggest Lost fan sites. Still hated the end.)

 

[allmywires]

From what I remember, the reason they couldn't both live in the same dimension after Amber Spyglass was because living in the wrong dimension gives you a dramatically shortened lifespan.

I think that was the biggest problem. And they could only leave one window open, and that was the one in the land of the dead, so the dead could be free and at one with the world again rather than living with those dreadful harpies. Also, it meant that Lyra and Will knew they'd be together again when they died, because their atoms would meet up again.

Still would've been nice if they'd actually lived their lives together though...

re: Lost, I loved the show but they massively cocked up after all the 'we have to go back!' business and time travelling. The ending was pretty clear imo: the island was REAL, the flash-sideways was the stupid purgatory storyline. God that ending still makes me mad. I CAN'T BELIEVE THE WHOLE SHOW WAS ABOUT JACK FINDING HIMSELF!

*rages*

That wasn't a happy or sad ending...it was just bad, and lazy. The worst kind.

 

[Galacticdefender]

Different endings for different characters, I say.

Though I've got an example of an ending that feels a bit more realistic than most, from, of all things, the Redwall book Martin The Warrior.

After a long, perilous journey, the good guys are finally going to drive the bad guys out of their land, with Martin leading the charge. Anyway, it turns out, at the end of the battle, they are victorious, and it is implied that most live happily ever after. Martin's closest friend, Rose, is killed at the climax of the novel, however, and the way Martin's feelings were written just made the ending of that book paaiinfully sad, and he ends up leaving, swearing to never speak of anything he experienced there again. So, yes you can still have a "good" ending, where the "good guys" are victorious, but that doesn't always have to mean that the MC's get to ride into the sunset.

Though I generally like sci-fi more than fantasy, but it isn't often that I read a sci-fi book that has a truly AWESOME ending. I read plenty that are marvelous works all the way through, but endings seem to me to be something that (modern) science fiction writers often can't seem to get write. Even Revelation Space's ending seemed to me to be a bit odd, a bit rushed, and not at all the climactic epicness that the book seemed to be building up to. Scifi movies and video games sometimes suffer from this as well (Looking at you, Mass Effect 3), though Halo 3 had a very good ending, better than many book/movie endings.

 

[Kickerz]

As the title says what are peoples thoughts about how stories should end. I deliberately not used not happy, rather than sad as that encompasses other negative endings.

Whilst writing and reading fantasy based stuff I must admit to sometimes getting fed up at the end where all is right in the world and they ride off into the proverbial sunset.

It's certainly not realistic. So while I understand the argument its fantasy and therefore not meant to be realistic I also want the realism there.

Would this be too much for the genre?

It is all about the journey, not the destination. When it comes to a story, tell me a good one. Though you have to be careful of what you are conveying to the reader if your ending is sad or depressing.

As you say, most fantasy somehow finds a happy ending. Some of the best stuff does not.

Most people start writing to convince someone of something. Usually that is easier to do when that message is followed through with positive reinforcement. However, a cautionary tale can end very effective angry denouement!

*** I am sorry, this whole response was interrupted by my lovely wife. My train of thought is lost, and she has need of me. I apologize for the lack of unity and cohesiveness.

 

[stratosaeros]

I really enjoy the underdog, surviving against the odds type happy endings. However I agree with several posters, that sad endings or tragic events bring out stronger emotions. These types of endings bring out a greater connection to the other characters in the book that may survive instead of the hero.

For example; if the hero dies at the tail end of the book. You feel the same despair that the writer explains the hero's companion is feeling. This connects you with both the hero and the supporting characters.

 

[Grinnel]

You bunch of heartless creeps!

Bad enough that Dumbledor and many of the other supporting characters in Harry Potter died. If Harry had died I would NEVER forgive the author!

Also remember, gentle readers, that Harry Potter was a children's book! You would have made an entitre generation as cynical as you if they grew up with him and then he died!

 

[Tecdavid]

There's quite a few pages to this thread, so I'm sorry if someone has brought this up already.

I like endings which are happy, but what took place in the story and its ending has a lasting affect. The villainous movement or empire has been brought down, and the oppression has ended, but the world must now learn to stand on its own two feet, instead of having said empire control it. Or perhaps the source of all magic was in fact a thing of evil, and now that it's gone, people will need to rely on something new.
Or maybe something of a smaller scale: The once-racist main character has travelled the world on their adventure, and learnt the error of his ways on meeting other cultures.

In short: I like endings which are happy and fulfilling, but have a point or meaning to them. With the defeat of the horrid superpower, a new age dawns. Something to that effect.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Some people like happy endings. That's fine. But don't put it on too small a level. In the long run, a world really won't care about a single person, or a group of certain individuals. I'm talking about two, three, four thousand years on down the road, no matter how noble they might have been. There are exceptions to that, but very, very few, and there has to be a huge reason. I doubt the defeat of one single entity, no matter how powerful, will really matter to the world left behind.

What I'm trying to say is, let the world of the story have the happy ending, but rarely is it ever a good idea, I feel, to really give the victorious too big a happy ending without some form of sacrifice down the road, whether it's of their views, their innocence, their morality, or loved ones. But try not to overdo it on the poor schlop either and make them sacrifice all four. That's just cruel.

 

[Galacticdefender]

Some people like happy endings. That's fine. But don't put it on too small a level. In the long run, a world really won't care about a single person, or a group of certain individuals. I'm talking about two, three, four thousand years on down the road, no matter how noble they might have been. There are exceptions to that, but very, very few, and there has to be a huge reason. I doubt the defeat of one single entity, no matter how powerful, will really matter to the world left behind.

What I'm trying to say is, let the world of the story have the happy ending, but rarely is it ever a good idea, I feel, to really give the victorious too big a happy ending without some form of sacrifice down the road, whether it's of their views, their innocence, their morality, or loved ones. But try not to overdo it on the poor schlop either and make them sacrifice all four. That's just cruel.

Or you can just kill them. Sometimes, a character's story I think just needs to end that way. Commander Shepard from Mass Effect as an example.

 

[ClareGreen]

You bunch of heartless creeps!

Bad enough that Dumbledor and many of the other supporting characters in Harry Potter died. If Harry had died I would NEVER forgive the author!

Also remember, gentle readers, that Harry Potter was a children's book! You would have made an entitre generation as cynical as you if they grew up with him and then he died!

Word to the wise, Grinnel and anyone else who hates unhappy endings: Never, ever read any Welsh folktales or mythology.

Ever.

After saying that, HDM annoyed me because I felt that how they saved the universe was morally objectionable. I just couldn't get over it, and I couldn't believe someone had knowingly written a plot that lead to that - and how it was written pinged a couple of the old alarm bells.

I'm glad I got that series from the library. I could give it back and get it out of the house.