I saw this yesterday, and I thought the film might have been better if Sparky had stayed dead the second time around. It's not that I am against happy endings or anything, but I think it could have really set up an important message for the kids. That death is a natural part of life and even though it's really hard you have to let them go.
We accept the love we think we deserve
http://mrsantonyelchin.tumblr.com/
That's exactly the reaction I came out of this film with. I think the dog should have stayed dead. I couldn't help but remember that scene where Sparky saw his own gravestone and laid down next to it; it really looked to me like he wanted to rest in peace.
sharei agree with lagrammairienne. much more emotional if the dog had died.
also, i think this is one of Burtons worst films. Characters looked like from Corpse Bride, but ugly. Didnt seem very original.. and the whole frankenstein based story.. neugh.
Agree entirely. Everything after the hour mark was botched & lead to a pointless happy ending with absolutely no message. Really very disappointing
shareI actually preferred this ending and thought it was a slap in the face to the 'death is a part of life' message that I was worried the film was heading towards. I know it's true, and it's an important message, but it's a film. Tim Burton goes through the effort of creating a world so why not have a world where death can be defeated.
I just really wasn't in the mood for the dog staying dead (my dog recently died) and it would've depressed me all day.
Then... speak of the devil and the devil appears.
I agree with DjangoFreeman, I prefer this ending as well. Too many movies have that "learn a lesson after watching it" thing. It is nice to see a movie end the way you would like it to. It would have been too predictable for it to end the other way. So, I am glad it didn't.
shareDidn't really bother me. The Whales/Karloff Creature/Monster that Sparky was based on was always brought back to life as well, so I just saw it as cleaving to tradition.
shareThe movie did have a message: science can be used for both bad AND good. Death is a natural part of life (and many movies have already beat kids over the head with it), but we don't have the power to bring things back to life. Victor did.
Having Sparky stay dead would have reinforced the "never play God" hullabaloo the film was arguing against.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cG79lGWyL4
Hard call...I thought Sparky should have stayed dead. Otherwise, what is the point of the movie? Do science only if you feel love? So, neurologists, oncologists, and emergency room doctors should heal only those whom they love?
But, my kids loved the ending, and there are enough depressing things in this world already (heck, having Sparky die was sad enough), so given that it's Disney I don't have problem "for the sake of the children."
"Otherwise, what is the point of the movie?"
The point, as I said in the post you replied to but somehow didn't read, is that science can be used for both good and bad. Bringing a dog back out of love is a good thing, bringing animals back to win a contest is a bad thing.
"So, neurologists, oncologists, and emergency room doctors should heal only those whom they love?"
No, but it's encouraged that the aforementioned care about more than ego stroking like Vincent's classmates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cG79lGWyL4
I also believed the dog should have died at the end. It's as if the film is saying to kids that death should be ignored and that something will happen to make everything better once again. I think saying that using science as good or bad is a moral but a rather thin one and one kids will not pick up at all. A really great film ruined by a lame, "feel good" ending. Watch Marley & Me or Plauge Dogs instead.
shareI agree...the ending just didn't fit right...would've preferred an ending much more like Frankenstein (the movie it was practically copying). Someone mentioned the dog at his tombstone, I too found this "symbolic" that perhaps, he just wanted to rest in peace...the happy/sappy ending seemed "forced"!
--
I'm your average ordinary everyday, jorgeegeetooo!
I don't disagree that it would make for a valuable lesson if Sparky remained dead the second time...but all the same, even in the original short I found the ending rather satisfying. Everyone rallied together to save the poor reanimated creature they'd unfairly feared and reviled, and Victor's successful experiment was allowed to run its full course. Naturally, I don't expect that he'll ever bring another pet back to life in the future, or endorse it. It turned out well for a one-time thing, proving it could be done and allowing a dog whose time shouldn't have been up yet to live out the rest of his life. But it's not really the way things are meant to be; when someone has to go, you need to be able to say goodbye. In this case, though, Sparky WILLED himself back to life because of Victor's love and the acceptance of the rest of the town--something the original "Frankenstein's monster" could never find.
Maybe it's just because it's a movie, and you don't want to see a poor dog and boy go through all that only to have the dog end up dead again in the end, lol. I'm sure Disney and some test audiences found that too upsetting and depressing.
He was meant to die in the original but Disney put a stop to that, and it appears they did the same here. Too bad. I was hoping Tim would get to have the ending he always wanted.
shareYeah, that sorta figures. They probably wouldn't want to have such a depressing conclusion. Be interesting if he could've done a version where that had to happen, though. I can see the merit in both endings.
shareExactly. I was damn near bawling at the line 'You don't have to come back again; you'll always be in my heart'… but Burton couldn't let his kooky impulsiveness rest, he had to ruin things by trying to fake the audience out, instead of being genuine for once… Meh.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
Disney wanted a happy ending, much liked the forced on Tim with the short version from 1984.
shareThis is what i don't get though; nowadays, he's got the clout to say 'You either let me do the film my way, or I'm off'. He didn't have that in 1984. The extended remake only got greenlit in the first place because it could be marketed as a Tim Burton vision. He must have loads of other projects he could've done instead, if he was feeling stifled here. He's no longer some jobbing director who can be told what to do.
So that suggests two possibilities: Either he saw nothing wrong with the ending, and thought it was appropriate (worrying, because it does nothing for the story, so his instincts are on the slide… ) or he would have preffered to do it another way, but didn't think it was worth fighting for (so he's become jaded, and lost his edge… ) Either way, his compliance is not a good look on him.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
It doesn't work like that i'm afraid.
It's still Disney's money, Tim could walk away but then he wouldn't get the chance to make the film, and if he had that attitude with all studios he would be out of work.
he has said many times before it's HARDER to get films made now his older and experience when he was when he was younger, I guess the younger and in-experience a director is the cheaper they are and they're also disposable.
All films are a collaboration, people have to compromise.
He got the film in Black and while, shot using Stop-motion. Disney got a 'family friendly' ending, which was also true to the original short.
But the idea he must have all this power and able to throw he weight around it nonsense, Other than Spielberg I don't think any other director has that much clout.
On the other hand maybe he did exactly what he wanted to do?? maybe that's his vision and how he wanted to tell the story.
If I could afford it (and he can) then I'd rather walk away from a film, than release something I wasn't happy with... He doesn't even need to walk away; he could insist that his name not be featured prominently in the promotion, or he could withdraw his name from it, completely (in extreme cases, other directors have done this). He could even make his untenable position very clear, in the press (which I'm assuming he hasn't done, given that we're speculating about it) There's lots of things he could do to make the situation clear.
He wouldn't NEED to have that attitude with all studios, because not all studios would be so meddlesome, when it came to a big name director.
There's more pressure and responsibility that comes with having a bigger reputation, sure... but he also doesn't have the same battle to prove himself, anymore. He could never make another film again, and still have a great legacy. He doesn't need the money, and if you're doing it out of the pure love of art, then that means standing up for yourself, when necessary.
Compromise is key sometimes, for sure... It just seems that in this case, bowing to the studio was more important than the story - and if that IS true, then that speaks volumes.
Plenty of directors do have or have had final cut... and if you DON'T have it, then to prevent misrepresentation, you should make sure that the audience knows your hand was forced.
According to Wikipedia: Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, Joel & Ethan Coen, Martin Scorsese, James Cameron, Quentin Tarantino, Wolfgang Petersen, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, David Fincher, Francis Ford Coppola, M. Night Shyamalan, Peter Jackson, George Lucas, Christopher Nolan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Tim Burton, Joe Dante, Woody Allen, Alexander Payne & Terrence Malick... So plenty besides Spielberg, even if not all of them retain the privilege on every film... Shyamalan for instance, has probably since lost the perk. However, Burton largely continues to be very profitable for the studios, meaning that they are far more likely to let him have his way). Generally it tends to be granted to directors whose name would be recognisable even amongst casual filmgoers... If you're an auteur, for instance. Even if you don't have that luxury, you can still ask.
I thought you mentioned in your last post about it not being Burton's ideal ending, because you had verified quotes, saying as such? If not, then there is just as much speculation on your side, as there is on mine.
I don't need a moral message, or even a philosophy that I agree with (I hated the 'funny' line "Sometimes adults don't know what they're talking about", but I can see some justification for writing it... ) However, I do want a story that demonstrates 'growth', of some sort. At the start of the movie, the setup is 'Boy resurrects dog out of love... ', and at the end of the movie, the finale is 'Boy resurrects dog out of love'... Where's the development in that? The characters are in the same place they were at the start, and all of the conflict we get in the middle is just filler that's eventually resolved, without bringing about any lasting change.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
It not as simple as that.
Also the short film is loved by many people, we would be the first to complain if he changed the ending, or the beginning or something major. He hasn't got George Lucas syndrome. The short film is what it is.
I'm sure it's in Burton on Burton he says Disney kinda forced the happy ending on him back in 84, but I could be wrong. But the more I think about it why change it? As I said we're all fans of the shot however it was made and regardless who was reasonable for what.. so why change it?
He's also grown up since then, and has two young children.. maybe his feeling more positive about things theses days, no doubt his family is a huge influence on his recent work, it IS ok to be happy you know.
In what way is it more complex? That was the very purpose of pseudonyms such as Alan Smithee/Thomas Lee… Bargaining between director and studio still goes on, to this day.
The short film and the feature film are two separate entities… If the idea was to follow the short film rigidly, then they may as well have re-released it, unaltered.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
It's not as easy as 'Im Tim Burton, let me do what I want'
His always saying it harder for him to get a movie made then it was back in the early days.
They're not separate, one of a feature length version of the other, It starts the same, it ends the same and has lot of filler in the middle.
I heard that an alternative ending was proposed and shown to tests audience who didn't like it.. I dunno if is true, it was something I read online and nobody seems to have spoken about it since so I assumed it didn't happen?
I never said it would be 'easy' though. I'm not talking about throwing his weight around. I'm talking about a negotiation where he quits the film over creative differences if certain things he wants cannot be agreed upon. That can - and has - happened before, as I've shown. He obviously wasn't strongly enough against the happy ending to insist that its removal be part of the condition of him remaining as director. I feel that it's enough of an important issue to be a dealbreaker. If you disagree, that's fine.
What confused me is that first you said it was forced on him, then you said he might have been happy with it. It's one or the other, and I don't think either makes him look good. You seem to be bending over backwards to excuse his lack of involvement… It's okay to be a fan, but that doesn't mean you have to try to contradict every less than flattering interpretation. I was just voicing my opinion; it's not like I'm trying to argue that's he's a rubbish film-maker, at all! I simply believe that he made a mistake here, and that's ok, because it happens to everybody, at one time or another.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
I don't have the answers, none of us do.
Maybe it was forced on him, maybe it wasn't.
I'm pretty certain he wasn't keen on it with the short film.
I don't like the films ending, it was the first think I posted on here after I saw it, but just because I didn't like it doesn't mean it was wrong.. and at the end of the day that's show the original ended and I can't fault them for keep to it's original material.
Unless someone in an interview asks him we'll never know, and not many people who will have the chance to ask him would know the details of the short film.
I wanted the blasted Mutt to stay dead. I don't like dogs. lol
No, it doesn't mean it was objectively wrong - it's just my opinion, that's all.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
I find it hard to believe that Disney "made" Tim Burton do anything. Tim Burton's been in a position in his career since 'Batman' pretty much where he's had the luxury of more-or-less choosing his projects. Tim Burton signed a deal with Disney to direct two Disney 3D movies. One was 'Alice in Wonderland' and the other was 'Frankenweenie'. I think it is (obviously) likely that 'Alice in Wonderland' is the one that Disney really wanted Burton to make (and it was a huge box office smash), but Burton may have had the bargaining power and included 'Frankenweenie' in the deal as his passion project ("only" a $40 million budget vs. a $200 million budget for Alice). So while Disney may have made Burton keep Sparky alive at the end of the 1984 short when Disney had all the bargaining power…….I have a hard time accepting the notion that this happened again for the 2012 film.
I honestly don't know the backstory. Assuming Disney made Burton even change the ending in the 1984 short in the first place, perhaps it's true that Burton really did come around to the ending. Or maybe he just wanted to mirror the ending of the 1984 short. I don't know, but I can't see it as Disney imposing their will on him. This was a fairly small movie for Disney (as Disney budgets go).
Yep; my thoughts exactly - he did it because he thought it was appropriate, for whatever reason... It's just a shame that I disagree!
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
[deleted]