MovieChat Forums > Other People's Money (1991) Discussion > The Original Ending

The Original Ending

posted 14 years ago by Survivor147
7 replies | jump to latest

If you watch the Siskel & Ebert review, they both mention how they almost didn't give the movie a Thumbs Up based on the ending. They say how there was an original ending that the director hoped would be on "the laserdisc". I have the DVD and I do not know what the director's cut was.

Does anyone have details as to what the ending was before he was forced to change it?

[–] Mythical Monkey 11 years ago

They're probably referring to the ending in the Broadway play.

SPOILERS

The company closes, there's no deal to make air bags. In a coda at the end of the play, the narrator -- the Dean Jones character -- notes that Jorgenson (Gregory Peck) made $30 million when the company failed, then he died two years later.

"Jorgy, you only made one mistake in your life," his wife says. "You lived two years too long."

His wife (Piper Laurie) set up an "Employee Retraining Center" for the former employees, but it wasn't too successful, placing only 100 of the 1200 laid-off workers.

As for Kate and Garfinkle (Penelope Ann Miller and Danny DeVito): "Well, three months later, which is as soon as she could work things out at Morgan, Stanley, she went to work for him. She was very good. Three months after that she became his partner ... then his wife. They have two kids. Set of twins. Call them their 'little bull and little bear.' Friend of mine saw them the other day ... Said he never saw them happier."

A more cynical and sour ending. But personally, I think the movie's end works just fine.

[–] rap31264 11 years ago

I actually like the broadway ending...more realistic...

[–] henrimaine 11 years ago

The original ending and the movie ending are both rather good. It would have been much worse if Devito would have announced, at the shareholders meeting, that he was not going to take over the company, or some cheesy stuff like that.

[–] IceboxMovies 10 years ago

The ending is dreadful. It glorifies Gordon Gekko-style economics. It kills the movie, which deserves an unhappy ending.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 10 years ago

The ending is dreadful. It glorifies Gordon Gekko-style economics. It kills the movie, which deserves an unhappy ending.

Speaking as a Social-Democrat who generally loathes 'Gordon Gekko style' rapacious capitalism the sad fact is that Larry the Liquidator did have a point when he broke up New England Cable and Wire. His takeover was only hastening the inevitable, which was that in a world of fibre-optics and other new technology NEC&W was near to extinction.

Whilst the new ending might betray the reality of the situation whereby ruthless capitalists destroy companies without providing any contingency plans for the employees whose livelihood and thus community they obliterate, it does offer a realistic caveat to the, sadly common-sense and practical, solution provided by Larry which is instead of simply destroying companies and leaving devastation in its wake before moving on to the next 'unsalvageable' company, one should look at alternative ways in which that company's workforce, technology and general resources can be applied profitably to a new commercial endeavour.

I like the ending. It's still ambiguous because Larry offering to discuss Kate's proposal over dinner isn't a foregone conclusion; Larry may end up having doubts about the 'airbag' plan. But at least it shows people racking their brains, using their contacts and thinking laterally in order to come up with ways 'non-economically viable' companies can be saved after their original purpose has been rendered obsolete.

It's a hopeful ending offering sustainable solutions (i.e. retrain/refocus existing resources, if it's not too objectifying to refer to employees as 'resources') because in a capitalist system like ours Larry was sadly right about NEC&W. To use an example, Thatcher's attitude towards British miners wasn't so much a crime because she let the pits fall into closure; it was wrong because once those miners had lost their livelihoods, she and her government did bugger all to develop alternative sustainable jobs and industries for those redundant workers.

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

The ending is dreadful. It glorifies Gordon Gekko-style economics.

I would have thought it does the opposite. Contrast Gecko's plan to dissolve Bluestar with the likelihood of New England Wire & Cable being retooled to manufacture air bags. Whilst they're in the same business, there's still a fair degree of space between Gecko and Garfield.🐭