When Is It OK to Change the Original Ending?

The first thing that comes to mind is Fight Club. Though the ending to the movie is still kind of silly, it is definitely better than the ending to the book.

Reply

Don't forget Jaws. In the original book the shark was killed by a harpoon and Hooper is killed but in the movie the shark blows up. Sure, slowly dying from a harpoon is more dramatic but hey, its always great to end with a bang

Reply

I do think it is necessary for filmmakers to exercise artistic license despite original source material. Movies are naturally made for a wider audience. It's a case in point that the people complaining about changing the end of a novel are only those who bothered to read it in the first place. Those people will usually see the movie anyway. It's the rest of the potential audience that the filmmakers are working on. And movie-goers are very fickle when it comes to providing a satisfying ending.

Reply

heh. the one i remember most vividly is the ending to 'the natural'. the ending in the movie is radically different from the book. supposedly the book's author (bernard malamud) commented that the way the movie was shot and structured, the ending they created made more sense (the books ending is a bit more...lugubrious.)

Reply

I think everyone can agree that sometimes changing the ending can have a positive rather than a negative effect on the story as a whole. And some stories work well on paper, but the same conclusion doesn't translate well to the screen. I have read the book and knew that the 'real' ending of My Sister's Keeper was supposed to be, but I think the change really worked for this film. The ending is so unexpected, I believe movie-goers would have been put-off and disappointed by such a dramatic change that is so unrealistic and against the sense of pragmatism which pervades the rest of the film.

Reply

The Mist changed the ending and turned out to be one of the best horror movies I've ever seen. Definitely improved the ending from King's short story.

Reply

A Clockwork Orange - the film is mightily improved by missing out the final chapter of the book.

Reply

I've seen several movies based on movies & where most have the endings changed, at least two the story itself had been dramatically changed.

1. Jurassic Park-A lot of things changed from the book. The dinos were making their way to the mainland. The boy was the smart one. Hammond was killed off in the book. Some of the stuff from the book made their way to the second movie, which didn't really improve the book at all.

2. Along Came a Spider-I read the book before I saw the movie & I had never seen so much of a book taken out of a movie more than this one. I was shocked at how much of the book was not in the movie. And Morgan Freeman was soo not the right person for the role.

Reply

I know a lot of ppl are upset over the ending of my sister's keeper but if you guys think about it it was fair. One thing is when you read the novel, which was amazing and I absolutely loved, if they had kept the original ending ppl would've thought it was one of the most disappointing movies ever. I personally think the ending was fair and while it is true that some things were left out *[spoiler for book]* Jesse's pyromania, Campbell's relationship with julia.... they did add things that made the movie great like Kate's first time, i thought it was perfect and very clever. I love the book with all my heart but i think the movie was good too

Reply

I hated the ending of Picoult's book. It was a cheap trick, emotionally manipulative and unrealistic. I thought the movie ending was a heck of a lot better.

Reply

I don't mind artistic license within reason. The result should be a consistent and pleasing artistic vision that carries its themes to logical conclusions. The Mist is a good example of a film that did this. I would argue that The Ruins undercut the themes of the material - or were they setting up for a sequel (ugh)? Certainly the much-maligned The Scarlet Letter deserves its status because the change results in it having no theme or point whatsoever (that I can discern).

While I don't believe that movies should adhere slavishly to the source material, I think they should have something in common, or else why use that source? The title? The author's cred? The Running Man, for example, bears almost no resemblance to the source material because the actor cast as the lead was not believable as the book's lead character ... which is too bad because they wasted a very good action plot (which can probably now not be used after 911).

Reply

I guess if the movie improves on the book, than it's fine, right?

About My Sister's Keeper, though. I read the book and I hate the ending. Not because she died, but because it felt like Piccoult didn't know how to end it, so she rushed it or something. I imagine that I'd like the movie ending better.

Reply

If they aren't happy with the book, maybe they shouldn't make the film at all, let someone else who can respect the author's vision make the film.

Write your own original screenplay, and stop trying to capitalize on another artist's work just for the buzz and publicity, and then having the hubris to tack on your own hollywood ending just to make it more test audience friendly.

Reply

Hannibal. Mind you, the movie's not very good, but it's a monumentally better ending than in the book.

Reply