its been a while since i saw it but i am still confused .. what exactly happens in the end? how does he confront the boogeyman & how does he get rid of him? it would be really nice if someone could take the pain & explain me what exactly took place.. it was kinda confusing to me at least
shareSame goes for me...
He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark.
Tim's fears created the Boogeyman into an actual thing. you can tell this because Kate and uncle mike and jessica don't believe him at first and thinks he's sick, but then they all see the Boogeyman, Uncle Mike even shoots a nail gun at him and tim thinks uncle mike is aiming for him, but it turn out uncle mike was aiming at the Boogeyman who was right in back of tim.
so Tim's fears were so strong they manifested into the Boogeyman becoming an actual entity that could at times be seen by everyone or atleast everyone afraid of him.
I would have thought it would have made more sense for Tim to just be a psychopathic killer that had killed his father as a child, the mother covered it up for him which turned her into a headjob. Going back to the house set everything back in motion for him to go mental again believing in the boogerman and setting him off to kill again. I thought that's how the movie was gonna workout anyways....I was a little off.
shareTim's fears created the Boogeyman into an actual thing....
... so Tim's fears were so strong they manifested into the Boogeyman becoming an actual entity that could at times be seen by everyone or atleast everyone afraid of him.
yes and no, yes he was real, and yes he represented tim's fears, but i disagree on the point that tim created him. I think its more along the lines the boogeyman is a real entity, whose origins are unknown, and he simply appears to individuals in what makes them the most afraid.
my reasoning;
a. there where many if not hundreds of missing children, 1. why would they be targeted by something that tim created, 2. some of those were probably before even tim's time
b. the only ones that see the boogeyman that tim sees are those close to him, we are never shown exactly what happened with the little girl and her father
c. its more credible that its a shapeshifting entity, demon or otherwise, than to say tim show how broke the laws of physics, reality, and nature, and just poofed the guy into existence
d. plus i havent seen the sequel, but since there is one, it means boogey is back, which also kinda hints that he was not just tims imagination gone wild
The point is the boogeyman is real, but it's shapshifting entity depends on the things you're afraid of!
Tim was afraid of the doll, sweater and that light bulb thingy (don't know what's the name in english, I'm Serbian:)), so if he face his fears (those things) and destroy them, as he did, he'll defeat the boogeyman!
It's called a plasma globe (or plasma lamp) in English, in case you ever return here and remain curious.
share[deleted]
I actually met Eric Kripke recently (I'm a huge fan of his Supernatural series on TV), and he told me, first hand,that the Boogeyman was NOT real. He was made up by Tim's as an explanation for why his father left the family because he couldn't accept that his father left him and it made him so depressed and so vulnerable and sad that he had to create a supernatural (no pun intended!) explanation for his father 'disappearing'. He created the story in his own head and then began to believe it himself, leading to all of his emotional problems. Going back to the house was actually a good thing for him because it forced him to remember the truth and what REALLY happened all those years before, instead of blaming it all on the Boogeyman. Kripke said that he was trying to give the story a J-horror feel to it, like "A Tale Of Two Sisters' or 'Dark Water', where you realise in the end that characters you thought were real (in this case the boogeyman) are, in fact, not real and simply made up in the mind of a psycologically disturbed person. I will qote Kripke here, "Look, obvoiusly, the movie didn't work on that level because most people who saw the film thought it sucked and thought the boogeyman was real--but he was never suppossed to be real. he was made up by Tim. The audience didn't get it--it was a failure in that respect."
I saw this film years ago, so I don't remember it very well, and it looks from the comments on this thread like the Boogeyman seemed real because other characters saw him in the film...but perhaps if you watch it again, there is another explanation? I don't know...all I can say is that I heard it from the creator's mouth--the boogeyman is NOT suppossed to be real in any shape or form. He was all in Tim's imagaination.
Thank you for the very relevant information, but just as in your case I saw this film on TV months ago and could not recall the exact details. My main objection to Kripke's interpretation was the one you mentioned. In fact, as I was watching the film, I also expected the Boogeyman to be just Tim's imagination but then quickly dismissed the idea as impossible. I can accept that Tim created the Boogeyman in his mind because of his childhood trauma and fears. But the problem is that in the film, other characters saw the Boogeyman and some were snatched away and presumably killed when Tim was not anywhere near. For example, what happened to his girlfriend Jessica? Wasn't she taken away or killed in the motel bathroom? How about Uncle Mike? Wasn't he called by Kate (Tim's childhood friend) to go to Tim's old house and was killed by the Boogeyman there? Didn't Kate see the Boogeyman too? Were all these characters real or were they also invented by Tim? Or are the viewers - just like Tim - supposed to be having hallucinations? As a final possibility, was the film from beginning to end a story that Tim dreamed up? There are just too many unanswerable questions. If what you said was what Kripke intended the viewers to get, then the film is actually far worse than I thought.
shareThis would be a nice theory if not for the fact that in the final scene where Tim confronts the Bogeyman - he's there with his childhood sweetheart fighting to protect her and himself from it. So that proves rather conclusively that other people do see the Bogeyman and are attacked by it. Moreover there's an extra short scene after all the credits have rolled that show another child being frightened by something in the closet... hinting that the events are going to play out all over again with someone else entirely.
So I'm with the other posters on this forum that say the Bogeyman is real and that he's conjured up and given power by a child's fears. This 'it's all in Tim's imagination' thing is just what you're supposed to be lead to into thinking (enough other characters throughout the story keep telling Tim the Bogeyman isn't real) - right up until the end of the movie where we find the Bogeyman is a very real threat.
Thanks so much, this movie is going to be on TV tomorrow and now I have a better insight. I can only dream of having a talk with some directors and actors like you have.
shareI agree that this is the most reasonable interpretation. I am surprised that several posters on this board thought that the Boogeyman was simply Tim's imagination. For example, they buy the story that Tim's father had simply left the family. In fact, there is no doubt that the Boogeyman was real. He had been seen by many other characters in the film. Also, he had snatched away or killed Tim's father, Jessica and Uncle Mike, among others.The interpretation that he's just a figment of Tim's imagination works, but it requires that you interpret some of the behavior of other characters as a figment of Tim's imagination, too. In other words, under that interpretation, much of the film is from a subjective viewpoint (actually "subjective third-person", which is one of the fun things we can do in artworks), and Tim's crazier than we might otherwise believe.
The interpretation that he's just a figment of Tim's imagination works, but it requires that you interpret some of the behavior of other characters as a figment of Tim's imagination, too.If you read my reply to another poster just above, I have no problem with that. But for this movie, it requries more than just Tim's subjective interpretation of the behavior of the other characters for your interpretation to work. One has to assume further that some scenes witnessed by the viewers, in which Tim was was not even present, were also his imagination. That may work for you, but for most viewers, it is hardly worth their time to watch a film whose entire story was - in effect - written by the mind of a deranged person. If you are really doing your own work in film, I would suggest that you take that into account. share
On has to assume further that some scenes witnessed by the viewers, in which Tim was was not even present, were also his imagination.I can't recall a scene that would fit that (where we'd have to interpret something we're seeing as being Tim's imagination with Tim not present), but probably I just do not recall the revelant scene(s) already, so sure, that's a possibility, and for me, that can work (it's something else we can do with "subjective third-person").
1. Please refer to my reply to "carolynmorton70" above yours. In the film, there were indeed scenes (like those leading to the deaths of Uncle Mike and Tim's girlfriend Jessica) in which Tim was not present. To me (and apparently to many other IMDB users), that was a problem if we were supposed to interpret the Boogeyman as just due to Tim's imagination. It is worthwhile to compare these scenes to those in A Beautiful Mind involving Parcher, the Ed Harris character.
(******Warning******
What follows contains Spoilers concerning one character in A Beautiful Mind.)
We knew at the end that the Ed Harris character was not real and was just Nash's imagination. But that was okay since Parcher never talked to (or had any interaction with) all the other characters - and certainly not when Nash was not around. As you see, it was different in Boogeyman.
2. In order that we understand each other completely, how exactly do you interpret events such as the deaths of Jessica and Uncle Mike in the film? Were these deaths real or were they imagined by Tim? Perhaps even these characters themselves were not real but were imagined by Tim too? Again, for comparison, let me refer to films like Secret Window and Hide and Seek. The main difference was that in these two films, the deaths and murders that the viewers saw were real – though, based on what was revealed later, they had to be given different interpretations. However, in Boogeyman, if all the events shown (including the murders) were not real, then the film was essentially about nothing. As I said, most viewers would consider it hardly worth their time to see a film in which nothing happens and everything is just in the mind of a mentally-disturbed person.
I hope you now have a clearer idea what I meant.
To add to the confusion, it doesn't really help that there are temporal distortions with effects coming before the cause. Example: blood on the bathtub in the motel. And why are teleporting closets and beds? It seems like they were parts of a network used by the Boogeyman. It's still never explained why there are moments when Tim has flashes of unstability or premonitions. And we never get to see what's in the closet in the end that makes Kate have that look. Or why Tim had the room 3 key in his pocket when he was with Kate.
So if this was all in his head, such as seeing all of those children around him, then how do you explain the deaths?
Dad hung himself in the closet? Ran away?
Mom died from natural causes and Tim linked it to the Boogeyman?
Jessica got murdered by Tim or some other guy?
Uncle got scared by Tim and wrapped himself in plastic and suffocated?
Where are the bodies?
Like someone said earlier, if that was the creator's intention, then this movie is way worse than it appears. Much like any other bad horror movie, it doesn't make any damn sense. 23 makes much more sense than this.
This theory would hold up if one thing hadn't happened that was attributed to the Boogeyman: Franny's disappearance.
When Tim and Franny are in Franny's old house and he figured out she was also taken and her father tried to get her back by facing the Boogeyman, we see the wall filled with missing posters of Franny.
The date on them is 1985.
Since there is no date at the beginning of the movie, we have to assume it is set when it was made: 2005. Tim's dad was taken 15 years earlier: 1990. This means Franny disappeared when Tim was 3 -- and he and his imagination could not have created the Boogeyman because it manifested when Tim was 8.
If the movie's intent was to have us believe that the Boogeyman was a result of Tim's imagination, then they messed up big time by having the date of Franny's disappearance posters say 1985.
Otherwise, that ending would have made sense.
Reply to mihajlostojkovic: Your English is great! Really. Never would've guessed it's your second language. I don't know what the lightbulb thingy is called either :)
Parker-wolf: I thought Franny's poster said 1965? But I suspect you're right...
Guess we got our explanation in the third movie, but anyway Boogey 1 was a failure in a way, it was below average and even me who is very open minded to B horror think it was barely ok... so well why think so much about it.
Im a big fan of Supernatural, but that dosen't mean everything Kripke do is good...
[deleted]
Oh, I thought that little doll or whatever was possessed or something. I haven't seen it in years though.
shareHenryCW said - My main objection to Kripke's interpretation was the one you mentioned. In fact, as I was watching the film, I also expected the Boogeyman to be just Tim's imagination but then quickly dismissed the idea as impossible. I can accept that Tim created the Boogeyman in his mind because of his childhood trauma and fears. But the problem is that in the film, other characters saw the Boogeyman and some were snatched away and presumably killed when Tim was not anywhere near.
My thoughts/interpretations exactly.
JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies said - Because I believe that any artwork (and any other thing, really) is open to an indeterminate number of interpretations, without any particular interpretation being the "right" one.
True. The very nature of art.I especially appreciate artworks that acknowledge this and leave the door wide open for different interpretations, which is something that Boogeyman does.
I disagree that Boogeyman does this. In some situations, as in films like this one, too much information is given by the writer/director (or given in a particular way) that it becomes forcibly misleading, virtually undermining any opportunity for the viewers to interpret the story for themselves.
posted by carolynmorton70 - director Kripke said "Look, obvoiusly, the movie didn't work on that level because most people who saw the film thought it sucked and thought the boogeyman was real--but he was never suppossed to be real. he was made up by Tim..."
To say the Boogeyman wasn't supposed to be real & then make the film overtly appear as if he was - to the degree that he (Kripke) seemed to be trying to make it flat out obvious for us - is why the film didn't work..."...The audience didn't get it--it was a failure in that respect."
Even after having shoved it in our face that he WAS real, Kripke still blames the audience for the misinterpretation??? He'd have sounded more logical, & actually smoothed over his apparent error, if he'd just said: "film is art & art is always open to subjective interpretations. What did YOU think?"
6/10
"Hey, how come Andrew gets to get up? If he gets up...we'll all get up...IT'LL BE ANARCHY!!"
So, it's somewhat like the "monster from the Id".
shareIf Kripke intended the Boogeyman to be a figment of Tim's imagination, he must've really been upset when the advertising department came up with this tagline:
You thought it was a just a story... but it's real.
A lot of strange things happen in this world. Things you don't know about in Grand Rapids.