Why do people like ambiguous endings? - The Thing (1982) Discussion

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

I know what you mean, although some movies like to put the viewer in with the action so that we don't know any more than the main characters might know. To be fair, the movie was pretty much over at the end anyway. Most of the characters were dead, the base was destroyed, and Childs and Mac were going to die very soon at the point the movie ends. It did leave some measure of doubt as to whether one of them was a Thing and what would happen to the rest of the world, whether the spring rescue team would show up.

But I agree, there are a lot of movies which leave loose ends and have ambiguous endings. Most of the time, if the movie is done well enough, an ambiguous ending isn't really a huge problem for me. It doesn't affect my overall enjoyment of the movie, even if there's a few lingering points which are left unanswered.

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

In this movie, that is a huge plot element.

That is what drives Blair insane (the potential that the Thing makes contact with general civilization). That is what motivates the other characters to try to stop it, and eventually to destroy the base along with their own hope to escape/survive.

Ultimately, you don't know if they actually succeeded or not. Did they stop the Thing or not?

Instead you are left hanging. If a true sequel is ever made and they answer this question, then I would change my mind about the story. But, if I take the story for what it is in this movie as it is presented, I have to label it incomplete at best, or worse a cop out.

Carpenter was afraid to actually support an ending for a story he is telling (I know it is based on a book, but it still is his "version" of the story).

That is like the hero struggling to save the girl who fell from a collapsing bridge, explosions all around them with the exit/escape just 50 feet away and... cut to black.

I am not asking for a "good" ending. Just pick an ending and conclude your story.

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

All of these are good points. I was sort of under the impression that the entire world might have already been infected - or at least it seemed a possibility. Especially after Windows was having so much trouble reaching anyone on the radio. It was like the whole outside world was gone. If the rest of the world was destroyed, then neither Mac nor Childs would have known that - and all of their efforts would have gone for naught. Regardless of whether either of them was a Thing, their deaths were absolutely certain at that point. So they died not knowing - just as the viewer is left not knowing.

There are also movies which may tell a complete story, but the viewer may be interested in the characters and what might have happened after the basic story was complete.

Or a story might be designed in such a way so as to purposely leave viewers in the dark so they'd have something to quibble about. I was thinking about some of the debates on the Total Recall board which question whether Quaid's experience was "real" or just a dream. In some ways, it may even add to the fun of the movie, makes the viewer want to look at it again more closely to find any hints or clues.

reply

[–] scochs-1 9 years ago

I do NOT think people "like" ambiguous endings to movies. I speak for myself as well. I think that this is why those movies are rarely made at all. How many movies end ambiguously, really? I cannot of think of hardly any.

Now, that being said, "The Thing" ('82, of course) comes along. To me, this movie is great, not only because of the special effects, not only because of absolute sense of paranoia, but BEACAUSE after all of that, we are all left with, "well, what now?!" Is it REALLY over? Is Childs a Thing? Maybe Mac? We know all the Thing wants to do is freeze again... Can it really be killed with dynomite? We know fire, unless I guess the Thing is crematized, won't kill it.

Brilliant because it's so rare IMO. Yeah, I'm upset I can't see more of my favorite movie monster. I'd also like some closure to this nightmare. Ya know what? Sometimes you can't just get what you want. 

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

I just don't like it to end that way. Tell us what now. Tell us if the Thing is still around.

Also, there are a number of movies and TV shows with ambiguous endings. I think horror movies in particular use the ambiguity angle to open the door for a sequel. Usually this ambiguity is not quite as big as The Thing, though.

Still, just to name a few (spoilers below):

2001 Space Odyssey (To be honest, I don't even really know what happened in the entire movie...)
American Psycho (Did he commit all the murders or not)
Inception (Is he still in a dream)
No Country for Old Men (What happened to Bardem, forget his name in the movie)

Recent examples:

Birdman (Did he die on stage, did he jump to his death or is he really a birdman)
It Follows (Are they still being followed, this one is the least to me, but it still is intentionally ambiguous)

And one TV show example:

Sopranos (Is Tony killed)

Otherwise good movies (or shows), which were spoiled to me by the refusal to actually provide a conclusion for key storylines.

reply

[–] Stevicus-2 9 years ago

There are a number of examples in which the endings might leave us wondering.

Such as Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, where they just drive away at the end, and you're wondering if the birds are going to take over the whole planet.

Or in Dawn of the Dead (the 1978 version), they just fly away from the mall to an uncertain future.

Even in non-horror films like Wargames - at the end I wondered if David was going to face charges or what the whole debriefing was going to be like.

I suppose if one took time to think about it, there are probably lots of films which leave some questions at the end - things that people might wonder about. Even in movies where the hero gets the girl and we assume that they live happily ever after - I always wonder in the back of my mind if they end up divorced somewhere down the line. 

reply

[–] TheArkOfGod 9 years ago

I love it spoilers for movies that are 40-70 years old hahahahahaha

btw in American Psycho Bateman did commit the murders...this is out of the mouth of the writer

however, he was fantasizing about some of them...or obviously hallucinating...the book is far superior to the movie and I give the money a 8/10

reply

[–] king_of_bob 8 years ago

btw in American Psycho Bateman did commit the murders...this is out of the mouth of the writer

Some, but clearly not all. In the end, the audience can't trust anything they've seen because the entire story is being relayed from a character who experiences delusions.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] scochs-1 9 years ago

Whoops, so looks like there's LOTS of examples of movies with ambiguous endings.

Ultimately, for me, if the film kicks total a$$, makes me consider, imagine & theorize about possibilities, while also be entertaining; and for me it's a success.

Now that you guys have mentioned ambiguous movies, I guess one film that makes me say to myself, "WinTactualF" is going on here - Prometheus. I thought the movie was beautiful, however, there were so many open ended plot points, that THAT film did irritate me some.

The 1982 Thing is great. Kind of blows that it went up against E.T. and Blade Runner when it came out. Don't you guys think, that just maybe, it's was a bit too much for it's time? Too disgusting? Maybe to abstract for the audiences of 1982?

IMDB - Because some Trolls need more than just a bridge

reply

[–] johnnysmac 8 years ago

I love ambiguous endings and I don't think they're lazy. On the contrary, a lot of "endings" seem artificial because life goes on (unless the main character dies). It seems like endings are put in place so that the audience can stop thinking about the film. I would say Oldboy (2003) has a very ambiguous final shot: Does he remember what he did after being hypnotized?
I love David Lynch and Michael Haneke, two directors that respect their audiences and don't spell everything out for their audiences. Why should a director assign an unnecessary ending just so that you, the audience, has to do less thinking? It really depends on the person, but I like films that get better the more you think about them (i.e. Mulholland Drive), not worse (i.e. Looper or After Earth).

Great movies that end ambiguously: Memories of Murder, Doubt, American Psycho, Caché, Pan's Labyrinth (is it real or is it a the girl's way of coping?), I Origins, Mulholland Drive.

Movies that should have ambiguous endings: The Road (seriously, it would have been a much more powerful film had it faded to black before the family came to rescue him), The Place Beyond the Pines (did we need to know that the kid survived?), Road to Perdition, Birdman (would've been cooler if they had faded out after the montage and not revealed he was alive).

But I agree that The Thing ended on the right note and was a strong film overall.

What do you think about the aforementioned films?

I'm going to find it and I'm going to destroy it. I don't know how yet. Possibly with dynamite.

reply

[–] kElevrA7 8 years ago

I generally like ambiguity but only if it is done right. I think it's important to distinguish between ambiguous endings and ambiguous plots. I feel 'The Thing' makes use of both types of ambiguity which is where some of the confusion lies.

I couldn't agree more with your examples of great ambiguous endings. They all epitomise how ambiguity ties in with or furthers the themes of the movies without detracting anything from the central plot. Oldboy's ambiguous ending does not take anything away from the rest of the central plot i.e. the retribution/redemption arc. Another commonly cited example is Inception; whether he is or is not still dreaming is irrelevant to its core themes (i.e. the allegory of cinema).

However, as OP has pointed out, this is different from what Carpenter has done with The Thing. Throughout the film there is no definitive exposition on how The Thing functions (i.e. whether it is a virus taking over host cells, duplicating cells etc.) in order to build on the themes of paranoia and uncertainty. The problem is that leaving all these issues unresolved detracts from the film.

For instance, if Oldboy had ended with the fate of the antagonist ambiguous then this would have undermined the core plot and coinciding themes. Similarly, Inception would have been awful if the final scene had not included Cobb ignoring the spinning top to embrace his kids because it would have undermined everything the viewer had seen up until that point to no purpose (essentially reducing it to one of those 'it was all a dream' endings). Note that the same is true for all of your proposed ambiguous endings.

Conversely, The Thing tries to capitalise on this level of ambiguity but in my opinion to its detriment. The lack of prior exposition and resolution at the end leaves the viewer with too many potential scenarios for little/no added effect. Is The Thing Dead? Is it still alive in Childs/Macready? Is Childs/Macready just a Thing Clone but the main Thing is dead? Was Blair the main Thing from the start? etc. I mean I've even heard plausible explanations about how everyone has been assimilated by the end of the film and it is plausible purely because of the lack of exposition. I think it would have been much more effective to drop in a line of dialogue or some evidence to show that The Thing definitively was either a) exterminated or b) dead but living on through Childs/Mac. The ambiguity can still arise in whether it is Childs/Mac that's infected/duplicated and if so, whether or not it is still a threat to the human race.

If I didn't know better, I would've also called this film lazy writing. However, I think it's more likely a case of trying to make uncertainty a central theme, something that I personally feel does not work.

The two of you killed everything I ever loved. **** you both.

reply

[–] johnnysmac 8 years ago

Very well put, actually. You're right, a solid ending can redeem a confusing narrative, like Memento for example (not that confusing, but you get what I mean). And an ambiguous ending can heighten the effect of a film whose narrative seemed simple (Certified Copy, maybe, although its twist came in half way through). Anyway, I definitely see where you're coming from. The Thing succeeds at so many things though, one shouldn;'t write it off completely.

I'm going to find it and I'm going to destroy it. I don't know how yet. Possibly with dynamite.

reply

[–] svalinanikola 8 years ago

However, as OP has pointed out, this is different from what Carpenter has done with The Thing. Throughout the film there is no definitive exposition on how The Thing functions (i.e. whether it is a virus taking over host cells, duplicating cells etc.) in order to build on the themes of paranoia and uncertainty. The problem is that leaving all these issues unresolved detracts from the film.

Wasn't there a scene where it's explained precisely what it does? Doesn't it say that it takes over the cells? I don't see such a problem in this, all that matters is that the alien can act like a human being to fool them and it has been doing that multiple times, it even pretended to be a normal dog.

reply

[–] kElevrA7 8 years ago

Except there's plenty of evidence that contradicts the notion that it spreads like a virus e.g. the scene where they draw blood with the same knife. Additionally, the doctor that puts forward this idea could already be assimilated. Finally it is never clear whether The Thing is a virus, a hive mind or a single being that just kills people and replaces them with clones. We never see a proper assimilation take place (only failed attempts) and know that multiple characters can be assimilated at the same time.

Just to reiterate, I don't really have a problem with any of these things individually but taken together with the ambiguous ending and lack of resolution, I feel that these factors detract from the full effect of the film, something that I feel is inevitable if you prioritise paranoia and uncertainty as central themes.

reply

[–] king_of_bob 8 years ago

Exactly! Nothing they did to the Thing in this movie actually destroyed it. Blowing it up with dynamite would just spread Thing cells around, not necessarily destroy them.

The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/

reply

[–] TompaDompa 9 years ago

It's a good question. I'll do my best to answer it, though I can only speak for myself.

The main thing about ambiguity is that when it's done well, it keeps you thinking about the different possibilities. Personally, I like it when movies (and books, etc.) get me thinking. That's not its only merit, however. Sometimes, a question is more interesting than any possible answer. When that's the case, leaving it ambiguous is better than providing a dull and unsatisfactory answer.

From another post I made previously:

Good movies ask questions, and good movies answer questions. But what makes a movie great is carefully choosing which questions not to answer.

That sums up my view on the issue pretty well. The "carefully" is important; it only works if you cared to begin with. If whatever is left ambiguous is something you didn't give a damn about, leaving it ambiguous doesn't add anything—indeed, it may detract from the experience, just as you describe.

Here are a few movies I think benefited greatly from ending ambiguously/leaving questions unanswered:
12 Angry Men (1957) – Was the defendant guilty?
Blade Runner (1982) – Is Deckard a replicant?
2:37 (2006) – Why did Kelly commit suicide?
Inception (2010) – Was the ending a dream?
In each of the above cases, I think knowing the answer would detract from the movie.

I personally find it lazy of a storyteller to avoid providing a conclusion.

It makes me think that they themselves could not think of how to end it, and it ends up more of a cop out to me. A cowardly cliché..."The ending is whatever you want it to be".

We don't actually know what happens, and any interpretation, though they may contradict, is allowed, which is lazy and incomplete.

Here's where we really disagree: I don't think this applies at all to this movie. I also think you fail to adequately distinguish between having an ambiguous ending and having no ending (which I've best heard described as "[it] doesn't really end, it just stops"). I do understand the reaction, however. I have on occasion felt the same way.

Now, I will be clear, I don't mind if the ending has a little room for deduction (as opposed to interpretation). In other words, the ending doesn't have to be explicit in its end, tying up every loose end there is. It can let the viewer deduce the end by observing the facts presented to him.

Whether you agree with him or not, Rob Ager makes a fairly strong argument that this is indeed the case with The Thing (1982) in this video: https://youtu.be/SppG-I_Dhxw

Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

Personally, I like it when movies (and books, etc.) get me thinking. That's not its only merit, however. Sometimes, a question is more interesting than any possible answer.

I don't comprehend this with an ending. The story needs an end, and if the end leaves it up to the viewer/listener's imagination, then the story is incomplete.

Ambiguity in the middle of a story that leaves you wondering what the outcome will be is different. Ambiguity for a conclusion is incomplete at best (and worse, a cop out). The storyteller cant end his own story.

Well, you agree we disagree below.

Here's where we really disagree: I don't think this applies at all to this movie. I also think you fail to adequately distinguish between having an ambiguous ending and having no ending (which I've best heard described as "[it] doesn't really end, it just stops").

If the end is ambiguous, then there is no actual ending. I am not talking about a minor "loose end" that wasn't tied up. I am referring to major plot elements that drive the story.

In the case of this movie, the major plot elements are:

1) Who is "infected"
2) Will they be able to stop the Thing

Those are the major story drivers. And the ending does not answer these questions, but rather concludes ambiguously so that one viewer can actually interpret the answers to these questions to be completely opposite to another viewer.

That is not an ending. That is a major plot element left unanswered. That is the whole reason we were watching the movie (setting aside any artistic interest in performances/environment/etc).

We are watching to get the answer to these questions. The scenes reinforce these questions consistently. The suspense is driven by them. And we don't get the answers. I don't understand how anyone can actually enjoy this.

I disagree with your saying your movie examples are enhanced by ending ambiguity. I personally would much rather know the answer than be left wondering. Never knowing makes the story almost pointless, because one can never know for certain what the outcome was.

It is the only reason why I have any interest in a plot. I would also guess most people are interested in a story mainly because they want to know how it ends. But, I don't know this for sure.

For me, an ambiguous ending to major plot elements cannot be classified as an ending. In fact, this is further supported by the fact that many movies employ some minor ambiguity to imply that it may not be all over yet.

Even as much as adding a simple question mark to the words..."The end?"

That in itself implies that ambiguity, especially major plot ambiguity, does not actually allow for an actual end.

As to your youtube video. The guy makes a good case for why Childs is a Thing. But, as I am sure you know, he cant prove it. Also, another person can still put together a logical conclusion as to why he is not a Thing.

Even if I accept he is a Thing, we don't actually know if Macready gets him or not. It sure seems like he might be planning one last effort, however improbable it may be, should Childs be a Thing.

Regardless, this is all conjecture, and the story leaves an empty incomplete feeling for someone looking for a conclusion.

reply

[–] Don_Cheech 9 years ago

Whoever says an ambiguous ending makes for an incomplete film- is wrong.

-The Graduate
-The Shining
-Shutter Island
-(ALL Nolan films) inception, TDKR
-Birdman
-BladeRunner
-No Country for Old Men
-THE THING
And trust me, the list goes on.

All amazing films. Great stories.

This film was purposely ambiguous. Make the viewer wonder....make the viewer think and discuss. I mean... MYSTERY is a genre people. Mystery - involving the unknown. So, ambiguity can certainly be a good thing.

Then theres films like castaway, goodfellas, the matrix--- where the ending is certain and for the most part--fully explained.

And for others-- they dislike that.
So to each his own. Some like the mystery aspect, others do not.

Personally, I love mystery. Trying to figure out a film/ tv show.

It's good to use your imagination, however - I can understand someone disliking the idea of a director not explaining himself and his film. In this case, I think it heavily benefitted the overall story. The "unknown" aspect behind the thing adds a lot to its creepiness. I believe Carpenter knew that... I commend him for it

reply

[–] Mr_K_Pratt 9 years ago

It's something to talk about.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE EATING SAUSAGES!!

reply

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 9 years ago

A story can still have a beginning-middle-end without the implications of the event/story as told being categorically defined or the audience reaction/interpretation being prescribed.

I don't understand people who cannot accept a story which is not tied up without no loose ends whatsoever.

It's like saying you have to know exactly what has happened without equivocation after having heard a piece of music.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

That makes absolutely no sense, and your analogy to music is hardly comparable.

I am not talking about "minor loose ends". I am referring to MAJOR plot elements.

1) Who is "infected"?
2) Will they stop the thing?

These are the major story drivers, and at the end we don't actually have an answer. That is the definition of an incomplete story (ie no ending). At the end, these MAJOR plot elements still exist. They are why we are watching the movie, not just some small loose ends.

Your music analogy? What does that even mean? Music (instrumentally) does not tell a story. It can accompany a story, but by itself, it cannot tell a story.

At the very least, if you insist that it makes some sort of expression to a person, you must admit that this expression can and, in fact, must differ from person to person. No one will "hear" the same thing when listening to a piece of music.

Also, there are no "plot drivers" in a piece of music. The beginning of a piece of music can have absolutely nothing to do with the middle and the end. In other words, there are no questions to answer when one listens to a piece of music.

So, unless you are referring to a song with words, this is just a bad analogy. If you do decide to include music accompanied by words, one song is typically just a few minutes long, and has hardly any time to establish any real "story".

If you refer to a musical, well guess what? That musical can fall prey to too much ambiguity as well.

reply

[–] JordanMichaelKoch 9 years ago

Just because an ending is ambiguous doesn't mean the writer didn't know how it really ended.

Lynch knows all there is to know about Mulholland Drive.
Carpenter knows the ending to The Thing.
Nolan knows what really went on in Inception.

You should stop thinking that the writer of an ambiguous ending doesn't know how to end it. He knows damn well how it ends. He just doesn't tell you.

If you can't stand movies without an end, it means your imagination is lacking. In other words, it's on you. You're the one with the problem.

reply

[–] dbrockskk1 9 years ago

I agree completely. Well said.

suzycreamcheese RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

First, you make a huge assumption in saying that these directors "know" the answers. They may not.

Second, your implication that I should use my own imagination to finish someone else's story is ludicrous.

It isn't my story. So why should I be the one to end it? They are the one's I am PAYING to tell me a story. And I expect them to finish the story, not let me do part of their job for them.

It isn't my problem, nor should I be the one expected to end their story for them. I am not the one writing the story. I am not the one telling the story. I am not the one asking people to pay to watch or hear my story.

It is their responsibility to tell me how their story ends.

reply

[–] GorchBrother 9 years ago

I don't know if it has the answer [to whether he's human or not]..Who cares? The answer is stupid. It's the question mark that's interesting."

- Hampton Fancher. Screenwriter, Blade Runner.

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

So, I guess that proves that the writers don't necessarily know the answers.

The question may be more interesting to the person who is telling the story. I don't know. I am not a story teller.

For someone who instead prefers to listen to/watch stories, the answers are much more interesting.

reply

[–] GorchBrother 9 years ago

So if John Carpenter wrote his autobiography and the postscript read "By the way. Macready was the Thing at the end. That's why he's the one to suggest sitting and freezing. After all. He's done it before. See ya at the movies.", would the movie be more interesting?

Or if the camera swung round and you saw that the back of Mac's head was actually Nauls's face, then the movie would be more interesting?

"I don't need to believe it's real. I just need to believe it."

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

For me, absolutely. I would have the answers to my questions.

I don't know about you, but when I ask a question, I want there to be a definitive answer.

I think most people ask question but want to find the answers. After all, that is what science is about.

I personally don't know too many people who enjoy asking questions and not getting answers. I am certain there are people that dont care about answers. I am just not one of them.

reply

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 9 years ago

and not getting answers

Who doesn't get answers? And who are you asking?

It sounds like what you mean is you don't want to have to ask questions for wich "correct" answers are not alreayd provided.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

reply

[–] d-adrian-williams 8 years ago

damn its a movie not a cartoon where the bad guy has to die or the boy gets the girl, basically EVERY movie ends in a cliche definitive ending and im glad this film made me think, for over 20 years! NO OTHER FILM HAS DONE THIS!, not for me anyhow, this is classic and for all the films with cliche ending im glad this didnt have one it left us like the charcters themselves WE WERE MACREADY and GILES!!!!

reply

[–] d-adrian-williams 8 years ago

damn its a movie not a cartoon where the bad guy has to die or the boy gets the girl, basically EVERY movie ends in a cliche definitive ending and im glad this film made me think, for over 20 years! NO OTHER FILM HAS DONE THIS!, not for me anyhow, this is classic and for all the films with cliche ending im glad this didnt have one it left us like the charcters themselves we didnt know its like WE WERE MACREADY and GILES!!!! maybe that what the director and ilk were going for, leave the happy endings for E.T.

reply

[–] ccr1633 9 years ago

Paranoia, uncertainty, and helplessness were all major ingredients of The Thing '82, and that's how it ended. Appropriately so.

Another film with a properly ambiguous ending that comes to mind is eXistenZ.

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

They are the plot drivers. Saying that the "ending" is appropriate is like saying a murder mystery should not end with the mystery being solved.

It makes no sense. Major elements of a plot need to be resolved in order to have an appropriate ending. Otherwise, you don't actually have an ending.

reply

[–] ccr1633 9 years ago

It makes no sense. Major elements of a plot need to be resolved in order to have an appropriate ending. Otherwise, you don't actually have an ending.

We just disagree, that's all. Ambiguity can work just fine as an ending. There are bad examples of such endings, which seem forced and too self-consciously clever, and good examples like The Thing and Existenz. To me the endings of those films just feel right. They feel true to the spirit of the entire film. I wouldn't expect everyone in the world to share that same sentiment, or intuition. You can only go so far with words.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] solmaquina 9 years ago

I agree that too much ambiguity is a bad thing but I completely disagree that this film is an example of that.

Basically, the main story is of the characters battling with the thing.
The film ends with them defeating the thing. That's the story over. Anything else would be an epilogue that kills the pacing.

We're left with two options about the characters' fate at the end of the film. Either they stay there and die, happy that they saved the planet (which is almost certainly what happened) or they manage to make their way to civilisation through some means and survive. It doesn't really matter.

If the film included an additional shot at the end of them lying, dead, it would just be unneccesary and the pacing would suffer.

If the film bothered to show them escaping to civilisation, then... well that would basically be an entire film in of itself.

But basically, the main storyline is completely wrapped up. Everything else is a subplot.

http://twitter.com/solmaquina

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

If the ending were as clear as you make it out to be, I would be satisfied.

But, I do think it leaves it ambiguous on whether the Thing is actually defeated. Childs could very well be a Thing. So I don't think the main storyline is completely wrapped up.

reply

[–] ccr1633 9 years ago

But, I do think it leaves it ambiguous on whether the Thing is actually defeated. Childs could very well be a Thing. So I don't think the main storyline is completely wrapped up.

It's a John Carpenter trademark. Was it even possible to "defeat" Michael Myers, who seemingly survived multiple point blank gunshot wounds? Did Snake Plissken really win his freedom, or was he being played by Hauk? Would the pirate lepers from The Fog return at the next big Antonio Bay celebration? Did the beast from Chinatown kill Jack Burton? Was John Trent stuck in a Sutter Kane reality loop or was he just crazy? Did the outing of the aliens in They Live lead to a human uprising, or did humanity just putter on with their slavish lives of commercialism? Did Catherine Danforth save the world from Satan or was she ultimately another victim trapped in hell?

You could make the same basic complaint about almost every John Carpenter film.

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

Not quite. See there is a difference between leaving a potential loose end ambiguous, versus the main plot drivers.

Now, I will admit it has been a long time since I saw They Live and Escape from New York. Halloween too. I don't recognize some of your life there references, but I can look them up.

But just to give you an idea of what I mean, I will demonstrate the difference in how The Thing could have ended with some ambiguity but still ended the current story.

Instead of the incomplete end we got, we could have seen MacReady settle into his whiskey bottle and basically freeze to death. Maybe a shot of him in the morning.

Then the camera could pan over a ways and give you a shot of Child's huddled in a somewhat sheltered spot away from the camp, though looking like he too froze to death. But at the last second you see his hand twitch and maybe his eyes flutter open.

Before you criticize the ending as I laid it out, I am not trying to posit this as a "great ending".

Instead, I am simply showing a way for the film to actually end the current plot, (MacReady blew up the last Thing and then froze), but leave an opening for either:

A) Child's surviving as a human
B) Child's could potentially be the Thing

This leaves ambiguity, but at least ends the story/plot of the movie, and gives us closure to the fate of the main character in MacReady.

Instead, the actual "ending" isn't really an ending because the situation as it was throughout the movie continues to exist. The main plot drivers are still open.

Halloween is a good example of this type of ambiguity (as are many horror movies). Loose end ambiguity rather than main plot ambiguity.

In They Live, we do get closure as well, if I recall correctly, for both plot and main character. He dies but he has exposed the aliens. Yet there is that "loose end" ambiguity you mention.

Regardless, as to your other examples, I do not like the aforementioned "main plot ambiguity", and Carpenter staple or not, I would have an issue with any of his movies (or others) that employed this.

reply

[–] solmaquina 9 years ago

Your suggested ending has almost the exact same level of ambiguity as the actual ending.

The actual ending: they're both left to almost certainly freeze to death, having probably defeated the thing (but maybe not). There's the smallest chance of a miraculous rescue but it's safe to assume that they're dead.

Your ending: one of them freezes to death and the other is left to almost certainly freeze to death, having defeated the thing (but maybe they are the thing). There's the smallest chance of a miraculous rescue but it's safe to assume that he's dead.

I'm not trying to be difficult; I genuinely don't understand why you see that as preferable.

http://twitter.com/solmaquina

reply

[–] sawplo 9 years ago

It closes the main storyline which centers around MacReady.

In the "ending" you are given, MacReady is still alive but confronted with yet another potential "move" The Thing is making (ie possibly having taken over Childs).

This was the central theme in the whole movie, essentially 'MacReady vs The Thing'. You are left with this same theme at the end, hence no proper conclusion.

reply