MovieChat Forums > Dread (2009) Discussion > Why would they change the ending?![spoil...

Why would they change the ending?![spoilers obviously]


Why would they do that?! The whole point of the story was to show irony. Irony in that quiad has been trying to find out the causes and cure for fear only for him to be killed by said fear. In my opinion, that would have made the movie far better than it came out to be. I watched the film surprisingly very, very, very interested only to be disappointed by the ending. They focused too much on gore and shock treatments that they forgot about the idea of the story.

reply

Completely agree. This film couldn't have missed the point of the story more if it had tried deliberately.

http://thepicturestheyremoving.blogspot.com/

reply

I agree. I actually watched the special features to see if the filmmakers would justify the new ending, and they do have a featurette where the director talks about why he changed it. The guy is so far up his own ass it's not even funny. His answer was so pretentious and nonsensical that it just pissed me off more than the actual ending did--something to the effect that Quaid wasn't ready to let Cheryl go because he's still afraid (just admit that you went for the commercial shock ending, you jackass). And Clive's kissing the guy's ass all the way through. It's so obvious they're buddies; I don't think he ACTUALLY liked the ending. The movie wasn't bad, but it completely missed the whole point of its original premise.

reply

Because this is basically the tradition of all the Clive Barker adaptions. They all have major changes to the original story to give different expieriences. This was done to Hellraiser, this was done to Nightbreed, this was done to Lord of Illusions, this was done to Book of Blood, this was done to The Midnight Meat Train and it was done to Dread.

The original story is about irony, this is a twist to the adaption. Does it make a better story overall? Not really. But i think this film made Quaid a more interesting character

I refuse to argue on IMDB until the general populous actually uses their brains

reply

Hollywood doesn't know or care how to make a good movie anymore.
I Am Who I Am.
Your approval isn't required.

reply

"Hollywood" didn't make this movie.

reply

What was the original ending? I was liking the movie and liked where it was going... Until it didn't go there. I agree though; his ending is the main reason I ended up not liking the movie too much.

reply

In the short story, Stephen and the deaf guy are the same character (they split him in two in the film to fit the movie format). Basically, when Quaid captures Stephen he locks him in a sensory deprivation room that makes him remember when he was deaf for a short time during his childhood, driving him insane kind of like the deaf guy in the movie. Quaid's motivations in both versions are the same.

The differences between the story and film, however, are pretty substantial:
-In the story, Quaid really does seem to let Cheryl go, although she's completely insane afterwards. This is all told through his perspective, of course, and is thus not totally reliable, BUT it can be inferred from what happens later in the story.
-In the story, Quaid had a phobia of clowns (which the movie directly mocks through Quaid's dialogue by being pretentious and saying that fear should be deeper). He tends to have nightmares about them.
-In the story, Quaid does nothing to prevent Stephen from escaping (thus implying he really did let Cheryl free). Stephen is completely insane after his torture just like Cheryl in the story (and the deaf guy in the movie). In the story, Stephen wanders around town and stumbles into a homeless shelter (I think it was a shelter...it's been a while), where he is mistaken for a drunk bum and given baggy clothes. By this point he is extremely pale and his lips are red and chapped. They put the clothes on him and leave him be. This is when Stephen grabs the fireaxe in the story.
-Quaid's sleeping in his apartment until Stephen breaks in (kind of like in the movie). However, the events of the night make Stephen unrecognizable: his face is deathly pale, lips red and bloody, and he's wearing baggy clothes--basically, he looks like a clown. Quaid pretty much craps himself in fear and the last line in the story is something to the effect of "the worst thing in the world are dreams come true," implying that Stephen kills Quaid. It's still not a happy ending, since NO ONE in the story walks away sane by the end, but at least the villain gets his just desserts.

reply

I agree with you 100%. I love gore but even gore in most cases needs a decent story to back it up. This movie gave me a very unfinished feel to it at the end.

M.S.B

reply

They changed the ending so there could be a Dread II if the first one did okay.

reply

Exxxxxxactly

The Grand Budapest Hotel - 3/10

reply