REAL ending Explained (Director's commentary/comic explains it)
-
eddidit — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 01:59 PM)
For the record I didn't say "bad" ending, I said unhappy those are 2 different things.
Next time, try looking for the real clues instead of just what you want to believe.
I could make the same argument.
People can follow the movie VERY well. Everyone I have met online and offline, besides the very few on IMDB who has seen the movie all say the same thing. It is not a bad ending. This movie also gives clues throughout the whole film.
It's called confirmation bias. If you take a look at many message boards (there's a 7-page thread just a few post down about the ending and so many other posts where people are questioning the ending) and videos you will get different results of what people think the ending is. All the people who keep saying it's a happy ending, are not providing proof within the movie that it is a happy ending. So what's happening is a lot of back and forth of what the ending is, that's what makes it ambiguous.
What are these clues that are throughout the movie that prove it's a happy ending?
Oh and as for the interviews? I'm not gonna touch that, because what you said was beyond stupid.
What are you talking about I didn't mention interviews? If you're referring to my comment about commentary then you have absolutely no idea what effective communication is. It's communications 101, to effectively tell a story all the elements must be within that story. So the fact that so many people are giving different endings it's either
A. A whole lot of people missed these "clues"
B. The clues weren't obvious enough for a lot of people to understand.
C. The director/screenwriters left it up to the viewer to determine what happened.
So if it's A or B, then it's bad writing and ineffective communication. If it's C then it's good writing and effective communication. I've seen a lot of different interpretations for it to be A or B. This is what I've been pointing out from the beginning that if the ending was so obvious then there wouldn't be any discussion about what the ending meant. Again this is what makes the ending ambiguous.
I also have to point out what others are ignoring, if this ending is happy then did the events actually occur or was it all a dream. The reason I bring this up is because people have forgotten the major snowstorm, the boyfriend's wrecked house, the dead delivery driver. There is nothing to indicate that Krampus reversed time or was even capable of it, so technically all that transpired over the last couple of days actually happened, didn't happen, or it was all a dream.
Although the alternative reality theory is starting to make more sense.
Either way, you look at the ending it can be happy or unhappy it depends on the perspective of the
viewer
. Now that I think about it, why are you so deadset and adamant that it's a happy ending? Why can't you let people interpret the movie how they want? -
marauteatime — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 05:20 PM)
I could make the same argument.
Challenge accepted.
A version of A Christmas Carol is shown toward the beginning of the movie.
Various "spirits" torment the family because of their lack of Christmas Spirit.
The majority of the family acts like Scrooge while Max acts like George Baily from It's A Wonderful Life.
Krampus looks like a combination of the Ghost of Christmas Future and the Ghost Christmas Present.
The Angel toy looks the Ghost of Christmas Past since for some reason a lot of times, that ghost is represented by an angel.
The Grandma represents Jacob Marley. Even her story as a warning.
In Omi's story, Krampus winks at her.
The Jack in the Box that eats one of the sisters and is always smiling represents the Ghost of Christmas Present. Always jolly and plump.
Max being thrown into a firey pit after repenting then waking up is EXACTLY like two Christmas Carol movies, where that exact same thing happens to Scrooge. There is also the movie Scrooged where Bill Murray's character attends a cremation at the end and discovers that it is his own. He tries to stop it, but is teleported into the casket and it with him go into the fire. He begins to burn while he screams in pain and terror screaming repentance and wakes up in an elevator.
The movie ends with Santa Claus is Coming to Town. More specifically these lyrics: He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you are bad or good so be good for goodness sake.
The boyfriend and deliveryman are not in a snowglobe.
You can clearly see the neighborhood outside the house. You can't see the neighborhood in the snowglobe.
Too much of A Christmas Carol is in it for it to say they are just all in Hell or a snowglobe purgatory.
The movie acts like a dark fairy tale. Starts off mostly cheery, then goes into darkness before going back into the light.
The movie is clearly about redemption. It starts off with the family not getting along and finally learn what it means to be a family.
And what are your clues for the unhappy ending. These?
The bright light of Christmas Day.
A snowglobe shows up.
Omi having hatred towards Krampus.
All this and I didn't even add the interviews, commentary or comic. -
eddidit — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 09:28 PM)
sigh I said the ending was
ambiguous
and pointed out how it can be perceived as unhappy, since some people want to argue that it's a happy ending.
So all your proof is based on outside sources, then my original statement stands that this is bad screenwriting/directing. You're basing your argument on a hypothetical that people watching the movie have seen the movies you're making the comparison to. Which then leads me back to my other point about the ending being ambiguous. If only for the proof you provided if a person didn't see the movies that you referenced then they will jump to their own conclusions about what happened.
That's not how you write a story or screenplay, and it fails at the basic rules of screenwriting. -
marauteatime — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 08:23 PM)
Okay, you are obviously an idiot, a person who believes only what they want, and a waste of time. I am done with you. You obviously don't want to remove your head from your butt so I am done talking to you. Good day.
-
Chris12955 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 12:33 AM)
To continue to point to outside materials as the definitive proof of an ending shows how poorly the movie was written.
I watched the movie, then read the comic some WEEKS later. While I initially thought it was the bad ending, I came to the conclusion it was a "happy" ending based off of the film itself, and a couple of hours to stew over what I had JUST seen. The film has too many inconsistencies for the bad ending to be true. The "happy" ending is the only one that makes sense under any scrutiny. -
TheMichael — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 01:51 AM)
I'd have to look at the graphic novel, because there's a difference between a happy ending and a "happy" ending. Same with this movie, Max got his happy ending that he wanted, but does that mean it's a reward? No, it doesn't. THAT'S HOW the ending is supposed to be seen as: not as something scary or painful but as something that will never grow, or learn, or end.
-
Chris12955 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 12:43 AM)
They all come back just the way they were if Krampus deemed them worthy. In the comic, we see what happens to those that are not deemed worthy. He turns those who cannot find love into his toys to serve him for future Christmases. They are not returned like everyone else. So there is a bad ending for some people, just not the Engels.
The Bell and snow globe are the interpretive part.
Is he always watching them, and will return if they mess up?
Or does he give them the bell because they passed his test, and he collects snow globes to watch those who prove to be the best of humanity so he can watch his good work.
I prefer the latter, as Krampus would be doing this because he wants to help others(in his own twisted way), and the snow globes give him a warm fuzzy feeling thinking of his good deeds. -
Chris12955 — 9 years ago(December 27, 2016 01:16 AM)
The person who made the video forgot something that proves the "happy" ending. Omi knew what happened to those Krampus took. She said she hid under her bed the whole time. How would she know where he took them then? How would she survive a frigid winter with everyone gone for miles and miles around. How could this strange occurrence not be part of the family history if she was the lone survivor of a mass disappearance? The only answer is that she ALSO passed Krampus' test, and lied to ensure Max committed the same act of love and bravery because he wanted to. Not because he would think it was the only way to bring them back since Omi said it, thus making it a meaningless gesture. Her knowing nod to Max supports this too.
Other evidence not mentioned in the video.
Krampus took everyone in a very extensive area, even the truly good people and the innocent babies if the bad ending is true. Why do that if you only want the bad people, and how will people ever learn if you kill them all?
Why did the helpers want to take people whole and unconscious(or
near
death) from what we see? He is supposedly just killing them, a severed limb shouldn't matter.
One little boy or girl shouldn't condemn or save a community. There must be more going on here. Max is just ONE person of interest in this visit, and not the reason for it.
Again, they took an innocent baby. What sin did that child commit?
I concluded it was the "happy" ending after I saw it in theaters, and thought about all that and some of the stuff the video mentioned(I read the comic AFTER coming to that conclusion.) All of those snow globes are the bigger success stories for Krampus. Ones he can look at with joy at his good work in helping others see the light. Of course, you don't want to be on Krampus' naughty list, because then he truly drags you to Hell as seen in the comic.