Can someone please explain the ending? Didn't quite understand it
-
bing-57 — 9 years ago(July 15, 2016 09:20 PM)
The boy that doesn't talk being eaten- I would say that his death is implied
Well, all the deaths were implied. Each one happened off screen. And the boy that didn't talk wasn't eaten, he was sucked up the chimney to an uncertain fate. The girl named Jordan was "eaten" by the jack-in-the-box, but she may still be alive inside of it.
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)? -
cgrill8 — 9 years ago(October 11, 2016 10:19 AM)
Huh? He was eaten the dark elves pulled him up through the chimney. I imagined they put all the family members as they knocked them out (or putting that slime over their face) which made them more sleepy than anything Stevie seemed completely fine when they wiped her face off)) into the back of the Krampus sleigh. I mean we saw the Der Klown (Jack in the Box) poking out from the back in that quick scene. And it had to be one of the 2 jack-in-the boxes with one of the girls in it. I was hoping to see a scene with them all roped up or bickering at each other in the back of the sleigh actually. With the dad, mom and aunt all with a bite out of their left or right legs but not dead. We only get that impression from Max when he asks his dad if they are all 'going to die'. And another sad thing is the grandmother did not understand the whole Krampus legend as the Director laid out. She knew nothing of his world per se. Only why he shows up, and who he takes. She knew nothing about how be redeemed, or getting her parents back.
3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers it was Drandul, dude! -
utexashorns — 10 years ago(February 26, 2016 09:02 PM)
you could not be more wrong if you tried, lol. They all suddenly remembered the events of the night before and how it was almost lost- not just the little boy. The lesson was learned but remember "he sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you are awake", in other words, he is keeping an eye on them in case they forget the lesson and dire warning given about the loss of Christmas Spirit.
-
marauteatime — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 11:13 AM)
Actually the ending is NOT "pretty clear". The reason I say that is because of the Official Prequel comic. In that, three people in different parts of a city or town are tormented by Krampus and die, just like in the movie. At the end, they are alive with a bell and even run across each other. They can't do that if only a small section is trapped in a snowglobe.
-
marauteatime — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 11:25 AM)
Considering Michael Dougherty had a lot to do with the comic and that it is an official tie-in, it's more haha at you for not understanding his world. He even said in interview Krampus is not necessarily evil, more darkly mischievous.
-
goonies383 — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 11:39 AM)
They are most likely only meant to familiarize people with the character who know nothing of Krampus. The movie is self contained watching just the movie you know Krampus is not evil he is a character meant to punish the wicked or naughty. He torments more than anything and delivers this ironic punishment of being forced to have a happy Christmas over and over.
-
wjwolfe-687-149852 — 10 years ago(December 06, 2015 10:24 AM)
The fact that it's an
official
comic book tie-in and had a lot of input from Dougherty himself would indicate that it is in fact canonical to the film. Thus, it is perfectly viable in discussions when discussing the Krampus/Trick-r-Treat universe. -
wjwolfe-687-149852 — 10 years ago(December 06, 2015 10:51 AM)
The strength of your argument is astounding. Show me an interview where it is said that the comic is irrelevant. The comic was written by Dougherty, Shields, and Casey, the three writers of the movie itself, so it only makes sense that they would keep the mythology and the rules of how Krampus works the same in both the movie and the book. I would say that if the people who created and wrote the movie wrote the book, it's probably going to be canonical. The introduction to the comic book (written by Dougherty himself) says "His mythology and history was too big and too rich to be contained to one movie", meaning that the comic expands upon the mythology already present in the movie, something that the back cover also states.
-
nddostal — 10 years ago(December 10, 2015 02:15 PM)
dude-youre posting the same annoying viewpoint on every thread! When a movie comes out, it belongs to EVERYONE. The ending is indeed open to many interpretations-there is no one right ending. That's silly.
