Why did they change the ending??????? - My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion

[–] roodlemania 14 years ago

I was so angry after i watched it to discover THEY COMPLETELY changed the ending!!! why would Ms. Picoult be OK with this? isnt this illegal or something? HUGE letdown and disappointment.

reply

[–] jackboot 14 years ago

I didn't read the book - what was the original ending from the book?

I had many questions after watching this, as, it did not seem to follow (thankfully!) formulaic turns of story that we've all come to expect (read: rue) from contemporary hollywood screenplay writing. Some of the particular turns and twists seemed so unusual to me that I thought that there must be a very personal story behind the story. Is there one? I'm not accustomed to seeing films that actually have some original thought behind them.

reply

[–] massage_monkey 14 years ago

I didn't read the book either, but I found the answer in the movie's trivia section here. You've probably already read that, but I thought I'd copy and paste it for you just in case you didn't (sorry for the e-mail from IMDB letting you know about my response if you already have, I so very much hate spam!)

Here goes:

"SPOILER: This movie is based on the book, My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. However, at the end of the movie, Kate dies. In the book, Anna wins her court case, then while driving to the hospital with her attorney, they are in an accident. Anna is brain dead, and her lawyer, who now has power of attorney, gives permission for her kidney to be given to Kate. Kate then makes a full recovery and goes into remission."

Hope that's helpful, and not "spamful", lol!

I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.~ Spike myspace.com/massage_monkey

reply

[–] ILogan 14 years ago

To be honest I like the movie ending better, of course I havent read the book, but from your post I think the book ending seems more like a hollywood ending.

"I know im smart, it just comes natural to me"

reply

[–] elchamber88 14 years ago

Based on that ending, I think the movie's ending was more real and less unbelievable. Seriously, kill off the kid that didn't really matter other than a donor mule. I kind of want to laugh at that ending. Seriously, that sounded like a Hollywood ending more.

Movie's tag-line, "She wins and she still has to give her sister her kidney."
"She just can't win." "We love you sweetie, now give us your kidney."
"When the courts aren't no help, a drunk driver is the hero."

Sorry those things sounded disgusting.

Post office sucks! My native American name is, "he who smokes biittches."

reply

[–] Ahm_Shere 14 years ago

I read the book first and then I watched the film. I personally thought that the film ending was more realistic. I liked the book, but at the end, even though I did cry, I was thinking...WTF? So, I'm glad, for once, that Hollywood changed the ending. It's the more realistic ending.

Do you mind Locksley? We've just been married.

reply

[–] Joy_Ride_74 12 years ago

Elchamber,

Yes, I agree...those endings you listed do sound dumb. However, judging from what we saw in this film, wasn't that Anna's "job?" I mean, this child wasn't conceived out of love. Noooo, they bring this child into the world hoping she'd be a match to donate whatever was needed to keep their other child alive. How would you (not you personally, but in general) feel knowing that your whole purpose of being was to be the medicine that your older sibling needed to stay alive, no matter how much it hurt you, or no matter how you felt about it? Cameron Diaz was such a bitch in this movie. Very selfish and obnoxious. I understand that she didn't want to lose her child, but I have a hard time getting past the reason for the youngest child's existence. I'm not saying the younger child wasn't loved; but she was definitely used for experimental purposes. With that said; if the book reads that Anna dies, and ends up saving the older sister that way, then the selfish mom got her wish, and one would hope she feels $h!tty about it.

reply

[–] Royalcourtier 9 years ago

"Wasn't that Anna's job". Do you really understand what you are saying? Anna is a human being (of course I realise this is just a movie). She has rights. Unless of course you believe that slaves, children and other non-citizens have no rights...

reply

[–] lilmarkuk 12 years ago

yeh i agree, the book ending is more far fetched and actually sounds more of a hollywood movie ending,

where as the actual movies ending you would expect the poorly girl to actually survive some how

reply

[–] Gazebogo 11 years ago

She just can't win.

That $*** made me laugh.

reply

[–] spasek 11 years ago

I agree with you. The film's ending is the better one. It isn't as convoluted as the book ending. The movie's ending reinforces the power and strength of letting go. Kate does this, and so does Anna and eventually her mother.

In most cases, I side with the book, but in this case, the filmmakers made the wiser choice with an ending that serves both the story and the characters much better.

It's true that I never read responses.

reply

[–] gcarras (2727) 6 years ago

I've seen the movie, in its original 2009 theatrical release, and I have the DVD, and I loved the ending,.,(saw the film firstr, though also have enjoyed the book)

reply

[–] MIchiganJFrogg (-35) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] d_ice_heart 13 years ago

no offense to the fans of the book but the book ending just sounds stupid...is more like a hollywood ending than the hollywood ending itself...its like a miracle ,the accident,the miraculously recovery,brain dead anna, the attorney surviving but not anna...even if i dont know but i supouse he was driving...too many factors to just deliver IMHO a stupid semi-happy ending.

the movie ending is not very realistic but definitly more realistic than the book,but take this my opinion just like what it is a opinion of someone who didnt read the book and didnt like the movie that much either

sorry for my bad english

reply

[–] ambeck22 11 years ago

It wasn't stupid, it was actually very, very sad and packed quite a punch after going through so much with that character. I bawled like a baby with that book and have never forgotten it because of how it ended. I read so many books that it takes a lot for them to really hit me. I think I was pretty mad at it for a while, too :-).

-Dad, who's that?
-Oh, that? One of my patients. He's...sick.
-Will he live?
-It's looking grim.

reply

[–] iajmpearson 13 years ago

No Message

reply

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

massage_monkey^

"SPOILER:

This movie is based on the book, My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. However, at the end of the movie, Kate dies. In the book, Anna wins her court case, then while driving to the hospital with her attorney, they are in an accident. Anna is brain dead, and her lawyer, who now has power of attorney, gives permission for her kidney to be given to Kate. Kate then makes a full recovery and goes into remission."

Whaaaattttt???

Well, that is a MAJOR MAJOR change to the ending.

Wow! That, like, changes the entire story for me...

Oh well. I went through enough Kleenex during the entire second half of this film that maybe this TOTALLY DIFFERENT ENDING saved me a few sheets.

But still.....

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] peyespy007 11 years ago

yikes, although when I first read complaints on here about a changed ending thats different from the book, I have to say the book ending sounds a little soap opera to me. The movie ending is more realistic. Anna did win the case, and kate got her wish to give up. It just seemed they did enough to save her. After a fresh kidney, then what? some types of leukemia are difficult to cure or cause remission. I had a friend who had it. Sad movie, but great acting. % stars

reply

[–] Lord_Gyaldhart 11 years ago

This movie is based on the book, My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. However, at the end of the movie, Kate dies. In the book, Anna wins her court case, then while driving to the hospital with her attorney, they are in an accident. Anna is brain dead, and her lawyer, who now has power of attorney, gives permission for her kidney to be given to Kate. Kate then makes a full recovery and goes into remission."

That ending SUCKS!

I am now glad that they changed it for the movie, and they explored the angle on how the 3 siblings were on board with the whole thing, and gave it a more realistic ending.

Perhaps in the book, with much more descriptive scenes, the original ending works once you are on the emotional train after reading most of the novel; but as a cinematographic ending is terrible.

Christianity's GREATEST ally and BEST friend throughout history is Satan

reply

[–] topsyturveyannmarie 14 years ago

Hi i agree completely, i saw Jodi Picoult being interviewed on tv a few days before the book came out and i dont think she would be pleased at all.She commented on the twist at the end (without divulging what happenned) and said that life can be exceeding cruel which the ending in the book shows although of course the ending in the book meant a life was saved. I was very disappointed wwith the film and glad i didnt pay to see it on box office.

reply

[–] Livana_Faolan 12 years ago

I haven't read the book, but I am aware of the ending thanks to Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, it is said that the author was not happy about the director's decision to change the ending. And as a writer, I don't blame her. If I were in her shoes, I would feel violated in a way. So it sounds to me like she didn't even know about the director's decision to change the ending until it was too late. Very sneaky, underhanded move on the director's part.

reply

[–] Soodinum 9 years ago

"isnt this illegal or something?"

It's ... it's like you've never come across screen adaptations of books ever in your life before. Weird.

'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.

reply

[–] Augustus_Octavian 9 years ago

Why on earth would it be illegal? She took a lot of money from them. She doesn't have a say anymore.

If she wanted a say, then she shouldn't have signed away creative control. Of course, mostly likely she wouldn't get a offer to begin with in that case.

reply

[–] shutterslut 14 years ago

I thought the ending was way better, from what I've read about the original plot.
Much more believeable, I think.
If Anna had died in the movie I would have been PISSEDDDD!
It seems like a cop out for her to die.
I dont see how a Kidney Transplant at that stage would help anyway..? When Kate was that sick.
It's like it just up and fixed her cancer or something. I'm not an oncologist though so IDK how it works.

"Sign it 'Dana Fairbanks - Professional Lesbian'."

reply

[–] DCompton86 9 years ago

I dont see how a Kidney Transplant at that stage would help anyway..? When Kate was that sick.

That's what I find sickening through the whole movie - I haven't read the book yet - but the parents want Anna's kidney for Kate when it'll only buy Kate a little more time. It's not going to save her. She might get up to five years more time - since it seems the cancer had hit her kidneys - but it's only a matter of time before it ruins the donated kidney. Not enough time to justify putting the younger daughter under surgery yet again for her sister. They were denying Kate a dignified death - she should have died years before.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

reply

[–] napanft 14 years ago

I HATED that they changed the ending. So typical for Hollywood to do such a thing.

reply

[–] madi-840-42222 13 years ago

Exactly. It's like "Oh . . . wow they girl with Cancer dies." What a revelation

reply

[–] lindseyd310 13 years ago

this movie is BASED on the book that does not at all mean they have to follow it at all. that is why it is BASED on the book its not a complete copy of the book etc. thats why they changed the ended. bc they can legally by just saying its based on the book etc. if you dont like it. dont watch it ?

reply

[–] hotfoot9772 13 years ago

I hate how Hollywood can take a brilliant book, and change it so that it barely resembles the original story. Even doing things like changing the physical description of the characters pisses me off.

The book was heaps better than the movie, but anyway......

reply

[–] noirdreamer 11 years ago

like the person above to whom you just replied to said: it's based on a book, it doesn't have to stay true to everything in the novel. i am a huge fan of picoult's novels, but from what i've read about her ending, it just seems like a bs way to cover the a**es of the parents who created a child for the sole purpose of keeping another alive.

"It's all very complex. Or else it's very simple. Or perhaps both. Or neither."

reply

[–] blasgirl 14 years ago

I think the ending of the movie was far more realistic... I did not read the book. The ending as described in these entries remind me of a joke I used to tell that goes on for like 15 minutes to a half hour depending on how much I would elaborate on the story... at the end of the story just when you are about to find the answer to the question you were waiting for the main character in the joke gets hit by a car and dies. That's what this reminds me of. It would be so unrealistic that she would get the kidney and be totally cured of all the effects of the cancer and the dialysis and the chemo and just be a normal healthy person afterwards... That is just garbage. I liked the movie a bunch although it is really unsettling as one of my best friend's daughter is battling cancer. On so many levels the movie moved me. I came looking for a place to process my feelings about it. From the role I have to play in my siblings lives... to the hopelessness that cancer leaves in its wake... to the judge who has to set aside her own grief to deal with her professional responsibilities. I am going to keep reading the blog and see what others have done to deal with the emotions the movie stirred up.

LuckyTurtleMT

reply

[–] aqua_angel121 12 years ago

I personally like the movie ending better. Especially considering the moral of the story is about learning to let go, knowing when you've done enough, and realizing life is more than just about being alive. Kate knew all of this and was trying to help her family understand. Yes, Kate dies at the end which is sad, but she was able to die without regrets because she lived a full life and she wanted her family to do the same. Each family member was able to get closure, let go, and move forward with life which is what Kate wanted. It's sad, but it gave the audience closure and hope as well. What kind of hope or sense of satisfaction would the audience be able to derive from the book ending? Anna fights through the entire book to get a say in what is rightfully hers, finally gets it and then its taken away by the one man who fought with her? How wrong is that? Additionally, what kind of moral is the author trying to make? That ultimately in the end we don't have a say in what happens to our own bodies? Whose side is the author on? The book ending is just a load of crap and the audience would not want to watch that. At least the movie ending was bitter sweet. The book ending is just plain bitter.

reply

[–] EponineSabrina 11 years ago

"Especially considering the moral of the story is about learning to let go, knowing when you've done enough, and realizing life is more than just about being alive"

But that's not what the story was supposed to be about - it's about the moral implications of having a child for the sole purpose of saving another. It was supposed to be Anna's story (a story that isn't often heard), but the movie made it Kate's story.

"Just because you understand the mechanics of how something works doesn't make it any less of a miracle"

reply

[–] cosmic_quest 14 years ago

Although I enjoyed the book, I preferred to the ending in the film since it was realistic. As another poster pointed out, a kidney transplant would do little for Kate if she even survived it because the rest of her body was done with years of chemo, other treatments and just fighting the cancer not to mention she would no doubt relapse again. The film dealt with the circumstances in a manner that you would see in real life.

"I always pretend to root for Gryffindors but, secretly, I love my Slytherin boys."~ Karen, W&G

reply

[–] gmisc8 14 years ago

I thought this movie was very powerful, and I'm SO glad they changed the ending. I've read several books by Jodi Picoult, and two of them made me really angry with the bizarre twists at the end - My Sister's Keeper and Handle With Care. In both cases I felt that the ending was a cop-out, gimmicky, and really ruined the rest of the book for me. I was very pleasantly surprised by the movie, not just the ending but also because it left out pointless, distracting story lines (like the lawyer's girlfriend). Also great acting all around.

reply

[–] missimin 9 years ago

I agree with you. The author insulted the readers with both books.

Beans are evil. Bad, bad beans.

reply

[–] flerlgirl 14 years ago

I liked the ending of the book better, mostly because it sort of forced the parents to deal with what they had "done," in a sense. They created a little girl just for the sake of their other daughter, and while I'm sure they loved Anna, they didn't show it as much as they did for Kate. So if Anna dies, they realize that she was literally created for her sister and when that purpose was served, she was gone.

In the movie, Anna would have to live the rest of her life knowing her parents preferred her sister and that it was her "fault" (in their eyes) that Kate died. I know the parents love Anna, but there is a clear preference for Kate's well-being over Anna's.

"The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity." ~Dorothy Parker

reply

[–] DCompton86 9 years ago

Reading how the book ended makes me wonder what the parents are going to do next time Kate's cancer shows up again. It's only a matter of time - the kidney wasn't going to make it go away forever - and now the enslaved daughter is gone.

"It's better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you aren't."

reply

[–] vinnieavenue 14 years ago

She sold the rights to Village Roadshow / New Line Cinema, so they can do whatever they like to the film unfortunately. She doesn't really have a say.

**Accio Harry's virginity!**

reply