MovieChat Forums > A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) Discussion > I knew they wouldn't have the guts to sh...

I knew they wouldn't have the guts to show the real ending from the book

posted 10 years ago by shadow1990
45 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS

First of all, what is the point of changing a characters name from a book. I'll never understand that. His name was Kenan, not Kenny. Well anyway, when KENAN stays behind to finish off the sick wacko, he doesn't get killed. Instead, he takes the psycho, straps him down and cuts off his ears, eyes, tounge (as much as he could), hands, feet and penis. He then leaves him laying there alive while Scudder swings back and picks him up. Hollywood these days doesn't have the balls to show something like that which is sad. Overall, it was a good film though. The book was better, but they did a decent job adapting it on film. It did upset me that they left out a major character though. An ex call girl named Elaine who Scudder is in a relationship with. She played a big part in helping out Scudder in his investigation. It was a good film nonetheless. I'm glad they left in the two finger scene with Lucia.

[–] dklv-598-231167 10 years ago

that ending is a lot better than the movie ending which sucked imo. too bad they didn't use it.

[–] tenantennae 10 years ago

So after that, what happens to Scudder at the end of the book?

[–] annseton 10 years ago

Wow. That would be an intense ending. I thought that's what he was going to do. Don't think I'd want to watch it but it got my blood lust going. Couldn't believe Scudder had to take the subway home.

[–] bellaalma 10 years ago

If this is legitimately how the story ends in the book, the filmmakers did a disservice to the story with the film ending.

I was hoping that Scudder would return to a scene similar to what you have described. It did not have to turn into Saw, but good filmmaking could have shown enough for the audience to fill in the blanks.

I enjoyed the film overall, but felt the ending was a real cop out. I hate the "moral high ground" endings that American filmmakers and audiences seem to be so fond of. It is as if they are afraid to truly explore the range and complexities of humanity.

Thanks for the insight.

[–] DAAIZY 10 years ago

Thanks for posting. This would have been a much better ending, considering the scenes of implied mutilation of women in the film. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the film-makers thought it was okay to have female characters suffering grotesque mutilation, but not the male ones, even though the male ones deserved it and the female ones didn't. Oh well, that's yet another depressingly misogynistic film to add to the millions more already out there.

[–] Eric080 10 years ago

So even when guys are the clear bad guys and get their comeuppance, movies are misogynistic. It's not that people take some kind of subconscious glee to see women getting brutalized, the whole point is to make you hate the perpetrators and sympathize with the victims. So, it's exactly the opposite. If anything, audiences might sympathize less with male victims, unless they were kids.

Like others said too, they wanted Neeson to be involved with "getting the bad guys" and having Neeson chop the guys to bits would be too morally ambiguous for the audiences. Which is a fault no doubt, but this is still a mainstream production.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Librartist2 10 years ago

It wasnt Matt that chopped the guy in the end of the book. It was the husband, Kenny/Kenan. He did what they did to his wife. Just Desserts!! I much better ending.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Morgana0 10 years ago

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the film-makers thought it was okay to have female characters suffering grotesque mutilation, but not the male ones, even though the male ones deserved it and the female ones didn't. Oh well, that's yet another depressingly misogynistic film to add to the millions more already out there.

I agree with you. Why is it okay to show men doing bad things to women, but not let Kenny have his revenge on Adam for what he did to his wife? After reading the OP's post about the ending in the book, I am disappointed. That was how it should have ended. I wouldn't have wanted to see it in detail, but for us to know at least that one of them got what he deserved.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Morgana0x

[–] mackes-1 9 years ago

Its not about what is or is not *beep* okay you *beep* moron.

The movie ended the way it did to allow for more action at the end with Liam Neeson's character.

[–] ladive 7 years ago

Have to agree. You have to really go out of your way to avoid thinking if you think this movie glorified violence against women. Just because a scene exists doesn't mean they're promoting it.

[–] Iconoclast321 (375) 3 years ago

It did kind of glorify it. The women all served just as (bloody, mutilated) plot points. Even in the book there was a meaningful female character (the call girl who helps him) but she is left out of the movie.

[–] arigayvis 10 years ago

wow i like that book ending.
i liked the film as well, but i do wish it ended that way

[–] nxgn_not_not 10 years ago

cowards

Holley's-wood & NYC big money

"we gotta go main stream" dreams

sad

Had such hopes

neant peut absorber auto

[–] Thrill_KillZ 10 years ago

What an epic fail on their part, neutering the film the way they did considering that was the legit book ending. I don't like people deciding what viewers can or can't handle in a film. The tone of the film and the degree of depravity that the killers operated on was more than enough to warrant a little gratuitous mutilation.

[–] essex9999 10 years ago

Agreed. They didn't have to show all the graphic violence if they were worried about that. In fact, they could have toned down Kenny/Kenan's revenge to one or two mutilations and then execution or something.

The fact that they didn't go that route but instead killed Kenny suggests to me that the were more worried about the moral message - can't let the drug dealer win or some such crap. Too bad.

[–] taxidriver8989 10 years ago

If they went for the original ending Dan Steven character would of needed more development to produce momentum to make it impactful. This is movie is more focused on stoic purgatory living existence of Matt Schudder his fight to maintain what left of his soul or moral code in the face of evil.

TERRIERS/The Chicago Code R.I.P
Broadcast TV is an Eminence front

[–] smoke0 10 years ago

It appears that only you and one other person in this thread actually understood why the ending was changed. The entire focus of the movie is on Scudder's carefully chosen morality and his personal redemption, and anyone who actually watched the movie would have seen that.

Revenge is a dish that best goes stale.

[–] jpkrunch 9 years ago

Well I actually watched the movie and would have preferred the book ending. They would have needed to do a little more editing and brought the drug dealer character out a bit more. They could have skipped some of the AA stuff (we get it, it is in more films than it should be). Not a big deal to have a couple of different things going on for those who have a decent attention span.

I would say my memory is not what it used to be. But I don't remember what my memory used to be.

[–] Waldimore 9 years ago

People understand the reasoning for the changed ending. We just don't agree with it and believe that the focus on Scudder's issues doesn't really work. I don't give a rat'sass about his redemption. And the way it was developed, juxtaposed to the psycho/maniac, sadistic nutjobs, was very weak. These maniacs chopped off the fingers of a young girl for goodness sakes!!!!

There was no satisfaction for the audience in the ending they chose. It was like waiting for the other shoe to drop and leaves an unresolved taste in the audience's mouth.

The ending should have remained in tact and left in the hands of the director to stylize it so we got resolution with regard to the torture these guys put their female victims through.

Kenny was going to jail, in all likelihood, so he was going to get his.

I enjoyed the movie as a modern-day film noir, thriller. The violence was more implied than actual and it worked for me. I've seen enough of Liam Neeson as a superbadd hero who can take out any bad guy with expert skills. Those movies are fun and action packed, but it's nice to get a change of pace where you actually get more involved with the story and characters.

Considering the violence was mostly implied, the original ending could have followed that track. The implied violence was more chilling to me. Even though they spared us with a lot of grotesque scenes with the women victims, I still felt chilled to the bone and angry about what these psychopaths were doing.

And as far as replicating the Gerard Butler film, I didn't even remember that until I read that comment on this thread. But most things in films are repeated over and over. Keanu Reeves' John Wicke is just another slice off the Taken loaf.

[–] lexyladyjax 8 years ago

Her fingertips weren't chopped off. They appeared to be bitten off. The wound was too ragged for a blade. It's more horrible now, isn't it?

Bored now.

[–] Krustallos 10 years ago

The fact that they didn't go that route but instead killed Kenny suggests to me that the were more worried about the moral message

Oh my God, they killed Kenny?

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.