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

[–] fnj2002 14 years ago

I didn't read the book, and from what I have heard about the ending in the book, I don't have the slightest desire to. It sounds like the ending adds a needless and rather pointless twist in the book. The ending in the movie was most poignant and realistic, and gives a message with more meaning. I have to give credit to the screenplay writers for the change; it was well considered.

reply

[–] straw_hat_boy_luffy 13 years ago

I like the movie's ending better too. It seems to fit better. The book ending seems to just be a little contrived for the sake of being twisty.
__
Writing is my favorite hobby. Writing something that many can enjoy is my favorite dream.

reply

[–] rhani84 13 years ago

I think both endings were good though I prefered the one on the book. All the time that the parents worried over Kate and treated her as though her death was almost a given and yet no one knew what was around the corner. The time they spent with Anna was just as precious as that with Kate and they took it for granted that she would always be there. I think the message that got lost by the change was that you shouldnt take life for granted. Anna fought for right to enjoy her life but her freedom came too late. The big shock twist is supposed to come out of the blue just as tragedy does, the readers reaction of how the hell did that happen? that makes no sense! mirrors the shock of losing someone suddenly.
Or so I thought....

reply

[–] mollyfields 13 years ago

To everyone who didn't read the book: the book had more characters, more plot, and deeper examination of all the ethical issues and effects of what the family did. Kate's health is also a little different in the book, so it is very possible that a kidney transplant would heal her. The book was also written years before and science has changed since then. Realistically it is needed to simplify a plot for a movie; it's not as long as a book. The book was much deeper and much better.

The book ending seems weird if you haven't read it because of all the stuff that is left out in the movie. While it is sad in the book, that ending seems a better fit. For the movie though I think the ending they used was better because they didn't have the time to go in-depth like the book did.

I can also say from experience that real life does happen sometimes the way it did in the book.

reply

[–] anxietyresister 13 years ago

This is just about the only time ever I'm glad they changed the ending of the film while adapting the book. Seriously, the original conclusion just plain SUCKED.

reply

[–] x-caitlin-x 13 years ago

The book ending seems weird if you haven't read it because of all the stuff that is left out in the movie.

I completely agree. I wasn't at all annoyed that they changed the ending for the film, because I really don't think it would have worked. Reading all these posts from people who hate the idea of the book ending makes me even more sure of that! They just didn't have enough time to develop the characters and the conflicts in the way the book did, so that ending wouldn't have the same impact it does in the book.

I quite liked the way they ended the film, and I think it was a good choice to end it in that way. Having said that, I do disagree with people who have read the book and hate the ending. As other people have said, one of the major themes was the book was the idea that Anna was always pushed to one side because time spent with Kate was precious. Even at the beginning, it takes Brian ten minutes or so to realise Anna has left the dinner table (and still no-one else notices). Taking Anna away was a way of saying that all life is precious, and you have to make the most of all of it because you never know when it might be taken away.

I didn't feel it was gimmicky at all. Maybe that's because I guessed quite early on that Anna was going to die, I just didn't get how. I wasn't sure if she would win and give up her kidney anyway, or lose and be forced into giving her kidney - but that either way I figured she'd end up dying on the operating table. That ending would have made the same point as the actual book ending, but it would have been far more gimmicky and forced, in my opinion. This way, it wasn't anyone's decision (like it was with Kate) and nobody fought for or against it (like they did with Kate) - it was just really crappy luck, which happens in real life.

Just my thoughts on it

x-caitlin-x

reply

[–] danielle-975-749480 13 years ago

I recently went to Jodi Picoult booksigning, and one fan asked her if she knew why they changed the ending of the book for the film. Picoult said she lobbied hard for the ending to be preserved, and talked to the director about it. She said that the book is good, but it's the ending that makes you thrust the book at your friend and say, "Read this so we can talk...!" The director completely agreed with her, and said he couldn't promise that nothing would change, but if it did, he would let her know personally. She said that seemed fair.

Eventually she found out somehow that they changed the ending, without having heard anything from the director. She tried calling him; he wouldn't take her calls. She visited the set, and was removed. To this day, she doesn't know why the ending was changed, or why they refused to talk to her about it. And then the movie didn't do as well as anticipated, because the target audience (her readers) hated the fact that they changed the ending to the book.

I am going to agree with the original poster and say that I was very disappointed to learn that the ending had been changed. I was absolutely dazzled by the ending of the book, and thought it was an incredibly brave decision on Picoult's part to kill off her main character at a point where you have let your guard down as a reader. Everyone expects the cancer patient, who is dying throughout the duration of the story, to ultimately kick the bucket at the end. I find unpredictability far more interesting, and Picoult's heartbreakingly bittersweet ending floored me.

"Bloody hell! Real vamps don't sparkle!"

reply

[–] danielle81587 13 years ago

I think it may have had to do with the fact that the movie was so sad as it is. They were like "Okay...we don't want people to leave the theatre and kill themselves. Should we let Abigail Breslin live?"

"Are you hinting my apples aren't what they ought to be?"

reply

[–] lavabass 13 years ago

having read the book before seeing the movie, i wasn't happy either with the ending change. i agree with others here who said it was probably due to the lack of time to develop the characters, etc the way the book did.

that deal with jodi picoult not being able to reach the director and being barred from the set of a movie based on a book she wrote is very strange.

reply

[–] Eowyn_89 13 years ago

just finished the book...and I have seen the movie before...to be honest, I liked the movie ending more...its more realistic...like someone said, the book ending is more hollywood...poor Anna...
I was shocked when I read the last pages...really didnt see that coming, but had a strange feeling...after all, Anna was really just there to save Kates life :(

No, I´m not saying I´m sorry!- 30 Seconds to Mars 'Closer to the Edge'

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Eowyn_89 13 years ago

well...I think that the book ending is more hollywood

btw...love your signature...same here :)

No, I´m not saying I´m sorry!- 30 Seconds to Mars 'Closer to the Edge'

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vmaj89 13 years ago

Yeah I totally agree with you. The ending in the movie is ten times more realistic than the one in the book! Most cancer/leukemia patients who relapse several times die. Especially if their cancer is everywhere (which was the case in the movie-I haven't finished the book yet, but I do know the ending)

reply

[–] Eowyn_89 13 years ago

she was really sick in the movie and in the book...just not realistic that she survived...well dont get me wrong...I hope every leukemia patient survives it, but Kate wasnt going to make it...

No, I´m not saying I´m sorry!- 30 Seconds to Mars 'Closer to the Edge'

reply

[–] monique79-1 13 years ago

Honestly, I like the movie ending better...Hollywood makes everything a fairytale and life is not a fairytale. Kids do get sick and they do die. I like the realistic fact of the movie, that it is not the standard hollywood fairytale.

It seems as well that Kate was so sick anyways, I highly doubt they would have done surgery or it would have took.

reply

[–] imdbdoesntneedmyemail 12 years ago

That book wrecked me. Seriously. After I read it I just sat there for a good half hour. Was not expecting that.

In my head I had already cast Aaron Eckhart as Anna's attorney. When I heard about the *beep* casting, I was disappointed. Then they changed the ending & sorry, I won't be seeing this movie.

For all of you saying you liked the movie ending better, but didn't read the book, your opinion doesn't count. This was supposed to be for Jodi's fans. It's like the director slapped us all in the face.

It sucks Jodi's fans didn't get to see a movie we would like, modeled more after the books we loved. Maybe someday?

reply

[–] KaivawKyora 12 years ago

For all of you saying you liked the movie ending better, but didn't read the book, your opinion doesn't count. This was supposed to be for Jodi's fans. It's like the director slapped us all in the face.

That was rather harsh. Though I disagree that a book being turned into a movie is for the sake of the book fans alone; the point of a movie is to bring the story to a new audience.

I've never read anything by Picoult as it's not normally my type. However I thought this movie was great, and it's opened me up to trying out Picoult's books.

I agree with the other non-book posters that based on only what is in the movie, the book ending sounds contrived and a twist for the sake of a twist. I don't think there's anything wrong with us for saying that as we can only base our opinion on the movie unless we read the book. I ordered the book about 2 minutes ago, so I hope I can soon see why you and all Picoult fans here feel the way you do about the book when I read it.

reply

[–] devil_girl15 12 years ago

i like the book ending better, it's less cliche. The movie end is typical hollywood, where the cancer victim dies from the cancer , thats been done millions of times, (One true thing, stepmom, love story, the other woman, the doctor, promises in the dark, dark victory, terms of endearment, a child's wish, dying young, two against time, turks fruit, blow dry, silence like glass , & change of heart). At least the book did something different, and im glad they did something out of the norm, the book's ending symbolizes anna's purpose that she onlu existed to save her sister nothing more. Her parents must live with guilt over what they did, in order to save their daughter they had to create a scape goat, but they loved her also so losing one especially the young healthy one killed them but they have their other daughter alive which is what they were trying to do forever. The movie ending is a predictable one, realistic or not, it was predictable.

What ever you do, DON'T FALL ASLEEP.-Nancy Thompson RIP

reply

[–] eyerny 13 years ago

Without the book ending, this movie just became another movie about a terminally ill person dying.

???

reply

[–] mysterymachine12 13 years ago

I was ticked when I saw the movie. Typical Hollywood to give us the "American" ending that everyone wants to see. The book was perfect. The title alone should have been reason enough to keep the original ending. She would have been her sister's keeper until the end...

reply

[–] EllaBond 13 years ago

i nearly walked out. completely destroys the WHOLE POINT OF THE STORY.

not my favourite film..

reply

[–] joanne-frances-marcus 13 years ago

talking about "realistic", when this book was written, the subject matter was in its infancy, i.e. unrealistic. after reading the book, i was shocked at the ending, but it was very fitting. when i saw the movie i was appalled that they made so many changes from the book. i have recommended to my friends who have read the book to not see the movie. the ending in the movie was the true shock. based on what the book is about and how it is written, the way the book ended was better. everyone got what they wanted (sort of) in the book. the movie was the cop out. that ending has been done several times in other hollywood movies. with the movie being limited on time and content, i understand the total removal of a character, but the ending in the book seemed central to me.

to those who have not read the book, please read it. i hate reading, and read the whole book in a few days. the way it is written grabs your attention, and you will meet a new character that was not in the movie version. until you have both read the book and viewed the movie, you can't really compare based on what is on this message board.

reply

[–] ilovelucycat 13 years ago

I can't believe they changed the ending....I also cried for days....what a let down.

reply

[–] emakii 13 years ago

I just saw this on HBO, had no idea there was a book.

The book ending sounds very contrived to me; the movie already has enough problems in this regard and to tack on a melodramatic and implausible conclusion like that would have taken it out of any realm of believability. I'm actually surprised at the author's cited reasons - isn't part of the dramatic tension of a situation like this the fact that there is no neat resolution that teaches everyone the proper "lesson"?

Frankly, it already takes a lot of the teeth out of the story to have Kate be the instigator of Anna's lawsuit. Why go to such lengths if the main issue has already been made so much less potent? I think it serves the story better for Kate to die naturally. This way we see that Anna HAS saved her sister, though not in the way her parents intended, by giving her the freedom to let go, by delivering her from her mother's relentless will.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kinaiscute 13 years ago

I haven't read the book, but from what i've read online I think I would have liked the book ending A LOT more!! I would rather have the shock death of Anna dying than the inevitable cancer patient dying. Plus I didn't really like Anna's character in the movie. She annoyed me and I would have much rather had her do what she was created for and save her sister. The parents should have made some legal documentation when Anna was born so she couldn't pull some sh*t like that.

"U don't have to like me...but you do have to PAY me!!!"

reply

[–] kinaiscute 13 years ago

I have a sick sister (not cancer though) but she's sick and she suffers! I wish to GOD I had the opportunity to take some of her pain onto myself and make her life easier! I wish to God I there was something..ANYTHING I could do to to make her life better, even if it meant my life would have to change drastically! I guess this plays a big part in why I HATE this movie, but think I would love the book!

"U don't have to like me...but you do have to PAY me!!!"

reply

[–] Sjhm 12 years ago

I gather from your remarks, you are an adult and you were not created as a spare part factory for your sister. You have a choice. You would choose to help your sister.

The point of the story is that Anna is given no choice. She wasn't born to be a person in her own right. She was born to be her sister's spare part factory. She is never given a choice. The only time her mother even listens is when she is presented with Anna's suit. The only child the mother is even interested in is Kate. Her other children are SUFFERING as a result. In fact the mother's attitude is so tunnel-visioned, one wonders how far she would go. Whether she would be happy for surgeons to take Anna's life to save Kate? Because that is definitely flagged out there.

Whilst the story is undeniably well written, and changing the ending makes no real sense; the foundation of the story is deeply disturbing.

Life is sacred, not just selected life.

reply