But this raises a question: when is it okay to openly reference a surprising plot point of a movie? I don’t think anybody has a problem with the Blair Witch reference, and I’m sure talking about the Crying Game is finally okay ;) But Cloverfield still feels a bit too fresh to talk about. I’d say the grace period for popular movies is at least a year.

Your example of Aliens and Titanic are great in demonstrating how James Cameron is able to end his films with a resolution but not a full stop. There more so seems to be an ellipsis, where life does continue after the credits roll.

This is not to imply that he is always writing films to be sequel-friendly, simply that the worlds he has created (another great example being the Terminator films) are so broad and huge in concept that no film or films can completely depict all the dramas within them. There are so many things happening off screen that are only implied, eg. Skynet in the Terminator films, that we as an audience are given things to ponder after the film is over. ie. THE FILM IS NOT SPELT OUT FOR US.

The best recent example of this is, of course, The Dark Knight. Cynics may say that the ending was just setting up for a sequel (which I am not necessarily denying), but it did more than that: it gave the audience something to talk and even argue about in post-film discussion. The ending was not tacked on, but a logical extension and conlusion to all that had come before it. We feel that Gotham City and Batman lives on.

Thanks for your great comment. I’ve decided to go with a small montage + additional small dialogue scenes combination. For my particular purpose, I realised that using too large a montage cut out a huge character development opportunity. I’m also using the time-cut as suggested here. So, I am keeping a montage. I believe in “execution over idea” so as long as it’s done right, a montage can be okay. My montage involves heavy metal music and people/books pushed over, so it might hold interest for a second or two.

Good to see a tragedian! Despite what I said in the last post I’m not a tragedy-seeking, nihilistic masochist (lol). I enjoy happy endings (and comedies and romances) as well; but it’s good to see tragedians (what a crazy word that is). Also despite my previous post, I agree, The Dark Knight had a… (okay, how do I say I like the ending without using a synonym of “good”) …ah …yes, I agree with you!

Regarding “bad” endings, as some have commented, there are also: tragedies, and stories where the protagonist perishes, and stories with negatively ambiguous endings (which are often simply tools to lead directly into a sequel e.g. Empire Strikes Back and, I believe, Dark Knight). I find that “Protagonist Perishes” endings are also often “good triumphs over evil” stories. Negatively Ambiguous endings intended as sequel lead-ins are really just used to get people desperate for a sequel. As for tragedies, the question is “do tragedies sell?” I think, yes they do, but at the same time we don’t live in Ancient Greece. I am however no expert in film or drama or storytelling, so my perceptions on these things maybe a little (or a lot) askew.

Again, some have said here that even the perspective of what is a negative ending or a positive ending can be looked at from many angles. That has been a good brain exercise for me. I guess in my clumsy way I was thinking more along the lines of: does a commercial movie have to, not only have a resolution, but also leave the viewers feeling good about themselves? Or with a sense of “good triumphs over evil” or “things always work themselves out in the end?” Terminator 2 and Donnie Darko are possibly my two favourite movies. Both have sad (to me) endings but both also have, what I would call, “good triumphs over evil” / “things always work themselves out in the end” endings. People don’t mind so much that somebody dies, because bad people/entities got their due and “ah, the natural order of things has been restored.”

But I’m coming from the perspective of a person who, as a kid, was always rooting for people like Darth Vadar and never once got closure on that. And why does Skynet always have to lose all the time!? Sure, movies that show “The Empire” dominating the “galaxy” for most of the time are great and all; but I just sit there knowing that at some point the namby pamby, goody-too-shoes “Luke Skywalker” character, or at least the “Force” that he represents, is going to win out at the end of the film (or during the painfully inevitable sequel).

Sorry for venting.

A big thankyou for those who pointed out the “Tragedy” type of story. I didn’t initially think of that, despite my own screenplay story actually being a form of tragedy; that is, rather than straight up non-happy ending. But again I pose the question: do tragedies sell? I don’t mean that in a rhetorical way. Not being the enormous film/culture buff some who read these things most likely are, I feel a little underqualified to make a call on that.

As for my own screenplay, just for the record, I don’t think it’s particularly commercial. So it probably may never get made. My first thought was to write a modern day / very near future “Frankenstein’s Monster” story but conceptually it quickly moved away from that and has turned into a “personal opinion vehicle” covering various themes ranging from “the dangers of genetic engineering” to “in real life there are no super-heroes, only self-sacrifice.” It probably sounds interesting right now; but I assure you, my story/writing skills don’t do it justice. I’m doing it more as a “learn how to write dialogue” exercise.

I just realised I write too many quotation marks / inverted commas.

And unhappy endings? As a self-professed tragedian, I humbly submit that unhappy endings are where it’s at. Donnie Darko, No Country for Old Men, and many others, people – often important people – die at the end. Simple development of a theme. When they gotta die, they gotta die. And as for The Dark Knight, that one’s interesting, too, because it’s not a traditional happy ending, but it’s still terribly inspiring and heroic, isn’t it? Does Batman win, or does he lose?

I guess the key is to have a satisfying ending, not a happy one, though most huge commercial movies do go happy in the traditional sense. Maybe Dark Knight’s tremendous success will mean that “happy” is no longer the mandate. It’ll be interesting to see.