Can someone please explain the ending? Didn't quite understand it
-
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.
-
chris-rozakis — 9 years ago(May 27, 2016 10:18 AM)
You're sitting here talking about this crap like you KNOW for a fact what is and isn't. It's hysterical. Please tell me that you're not an adult yet.
It's a supernatural/fantasy film. Saying what is "real" and what isn't is dumb. -
reaseltbim — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 03:54 PM)
you are so stupid lol
the creator of the movie literally worked on the comic.. .so you are saying you know more of this project than the actual writer? lol
thats so stupid
the director's commentary literally says that this is meant tobe like Christmas Carol boy you are dumb -
DisturbedPixie — 10 years ago(February 29, 2016 11:24 AM)
so you think he has to be evil to force a family to have a merry Christmas morning forever? seems mischievous to me. Seems like the punishment fits the crime, and Krampus does not have to be evil to do his job. That's like saying what happened to Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day is evil or firing an employee for stealing is evil.
And even if the creator has a lot to do with the movie doesn't mean the story/universe has to be the same. Whole characters were written out of The Hunger Games movie with the original novel's writer being involved. Plot lines were totally warped from the Walking Dead comics when it was made into a tv series.
Some things change in adaptions, and I can't even think of one movie that completely true to it's source material. Just look at how Alice's Adventures in Wonderland has been adapted! Only 2 out of the approx 50 versions in film and tv even are called by the full title, let alone how much the story has been warped in other ways. -
marauteatime — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 11:34 AM)
"As the grandma in the trailer describes him, he is the shadow of Saint Nicholas. But hes not evil per se. Hes more complex and nuanced than that, said Dougherty. If you study the myth, theres something darkly playful about him. Hes having a good time doing what he does and he enjoys the cat-and-mouse aspect of it.
"Hes not Freddy (A Nightmare on Elm Street) or Jason (Friday the 13th) or Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this unstoppable monster that kicks down your door and rampages and grabs you. If you study the myth, theres something darkly playful about him. Hes having a good time doing what he does and he enjoys the cat-and-mouse aspect of it."
And he even cites two well known Christmas movies that inspired his story.
"A Christmas Carol and Its A Wonderful Life are kind of nightmares that show you these broken characters who experience a darker side of divine intervention. They need to be scared straight. So it was important to elevate it. If you do a horror film without an emotional core, you dont really have much." -
fixations_of_a_fallen_po — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 01:20 PM)
The voice-overs should also be taken into context with what is seen on screen. It was emphasized Krampus punishes and is a malevolent forcethen the look of dread on their faces (especially Max) adds to the equation. The entire scene gave me the "it's not over" impression.
What if Max and his family truly are caught in limbo? What if the Christmas Max is experiencing in the end is more like a mirage? It was exactly what he had hoped for in the beginning. Maybe unwrapping the bell was his realization it's all fake, that he'll never escape Krampus. -
marauteatime — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 01:25 PM)
http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3371836/interview-krampus-director-michael-dougherty/
Considering what he says here and what the prequel comic says (which he was a part of) it is highly unlikely the family is in Hell, Purgatory or even the snowglobe. -
fixations_of_a_fallen_po — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 06:12 PM)
If Dougherty were truly going for that kind of ending, why would he leave it purposely ambiguous? It seems odd a director would employ a rather open-ended final scene then inject his own interpretation of it.
-
DeusExKatrina — 10 years ago(December 05, 2015 06:52 PM)
It's pretty common for a film to be left open to interpretation so that the audience can choose the ending that they prefer. Because there's a lot of people who love 90% of the film but then would hate it if Ending A happened and a similar group who would hate it if Ending B happened and etc.
I was hoping they would end it with Krampus throwing the kid into the pit of Hell and then just roll the credits from there. But that might have earned the film an R rating.
One clue that I haven't seen anyone mention yet (granted, I just started cruising the board 2 minutes ago), is the clear foreshadowing in the first real scene of the movie. They're watching A Christmas Carol. Which, as we all know, is a story where someone is haunted by disturbing visions on Christmas Eve, only to discover it was a dream the next morning and that he still had time to repent. That seems to be the theme of Krampus as well, which would run contrary to the idea that the family is in purgatory or Hell. That doesn't prove it definitively, just something to think of.
The only reason I personally would consider they might be in purgatory/Hell is because IMHO the kid didn't say the right things before Krampus threw him into the pit. He kept appealing to Krampus in different ways and Krampus wasn't buying it. Finally he says "I'm sorry I just wanted Christmas to be the way it used to be." Sounds to me like the kid missed the point, and that he wasn't genuinely repenting. Wanting Christmas to be happy wasn't the sin he committed to summon Krampus in the first place, so why would apologizing for that save him? He should have apologized for giving up on goodness and Christmas and his family.
All in all I'm fine with all the different interpretations of the ending. I'd probably err on the side of them being in a Twilight Zone-y ironic Hell though since the Grandma said she was left behind and the rest of her family was taken. And it seems like the kid was left behind as well, until he went looking for Krampus and confronted him. So if he hadn't done that, it probably would have ended for him the same way it ended for Grandma previously.
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame. -
marauteatime — 10 years ago(December 13, 2015 12:23 PM)
Interesting thought and I'd be inclined to agree if the director didn't say the comic prequel had no bearing on this film and was two separate mediums. The director clearly states that the comic was made to expand on the mythology and history of their Krampus and that one movie could not hold it all.
I have seen a similar incident with The Dark Knight Rises and got the same reaction that you gave. When Marion Cotillard was cast I called out she would be playing Talia, based on the only information I had at the time which was just the Batman Begins novel where it talks about Ra's writing a letter to her. Of course as time went on I got more info and was correct and it all started with a book people thought had no bearing and was just another medium to expand the movie novel.