MovieChat Forums > Hostage Flight (1985) Discussion > The revised ending removes the important...

The revised ending removes the important ambiguity.

posted 10 years ago by JohnnyOldSoul
4 replies | jump to latest

This post contains MASSIVE SPOILERS!

I first saw this film when it aired on NBC in 1985. I was 8 at the time and found the whole thing very disturbing. The "revised" ending that was shown on that initial broadcast showed the terrorists tied to their seats, one rushing forward and being shot, followed by the female terrorist and the policeman being killed. Pretty heavy stuff for 1985, but who could blame the gunman? He was rushed by one terrorist, shot the other because she cried out, and then killed the police fella in the confusion. This kind of negates the whole conversation the passengers had just had about whether to execute the terrorists or turn them over to the authorities. The whole scene is very visceral and one can't help cheering as at least two of the terrorists still alive (one had been killed earlier) got what they deserved. Shame the passenger with the gun didn't kill the third piece of garbage.

However, the original ending (which was rejected by NBC but aired overseas and sometimes in subsequent US airings) maintains the moral ambiguity that is central to the story. We see the legs of the terrorists dangling...the passengers have executed them by hanging. This is slowly revealed as we see row after row of passengers sitting pensively in complete silence. It is chilling. We're left to ponder their actions, how they will justify them to themselves and to the authorities.

The original ending is less immediately satisfying (I admit, even as a child, I cheered as the passenger gunned down two of the baddies) but it is so much more powerful. Such a shame that ending is not included on the DVD-R release from Warners.

[–] deontee2002 8 years ago

I only saw this one time (when it first aired on network television), and the version I saw had the "hanging" ending. I remember thinking to myself "What the hell did they hang them FROM???"

[–] [email protected] 8 years ago

I have to tell you, that even though this was a movie, it makes my blood just BOIL with rage. The lead terrorist committed the most violent and inhuman acts, and you would hope he gets just what he deserves: a slow and painful death. It makes me want to get into the movie and beat him over and over and over again, especially after he victimized two females - one murdered and one raped.
But no. All we see at the end is just him as the remaining terrorist, tied to his seat, looking straight ahead, and not knowing if he gets his just deserved!
If this were a theater film, I'm sure it would contain material that's far more graphic, as opposed to a made-for-TV movie.
Seems like the producers knew just how far they can make a movie just violent enough that it doesn't cross the line of being too strong to broadcast on TV.

[–] stevenackerman69 7 years ago

I know, I was angry too watching this as a kid and wanting to kill all four of those bastards. In the end, we just hope that the last surviving terrorist gets what he deserves in the courts-death. I'm sure that all the passengers would testify against him to make sure he was found guilty and deserved to die.

Here's something else: In the 1992 film Passenger 57, where there is also a hijacking, in the end, the last remaining terrorist is taken away by cops, so nobody on the plane thought to kill her too, after what she did?

[–] stevenackerman69 7 years ago

I also saw it originally when it aired on NBC in 1985. It actually aired five days after my birthday! Anyway, the ending they showed was the one where the writer shoots Ronet after he breaks out of the seat belt and starts to charge him, then he cannot stop shooting because he was so mad and wanted revenge, so he shot the woman terrorist and DiSalvio, who was trying to stop him. He realizes what he has done and goes, "Oh, no!" and starts to cry. So in the end, the last terrorist was kept alive guarded by Bart Cooper as they are getting ready to land in London and turn his ass over to the police.
The idea here was to show that violence leads to more violence and the anger he felt made him not stop shooting just one terrorist. If he had stopped there, it would've been fine, but he couldn't because he was angry at all of them and just decided to start killing all of them because one broke free.
This ending is better because the point is we must play fair even with people who don't play fair with us. It is very difficult in these types of situations to want that, but this is how our country is.