was the ending a cop out ?? - spoiler
when they were saved.share
I don't think so. The quick glimpse of the helicopter at the end was a relief. But we don't really know if they survived anyway. They were in pretty bad condition.share
In my estimation, after all that hard effort, not only the characters, but the viewers deserve what they earned. If either of them died, it would have missed the mark. I was even having a reaction at the end, telling myself I would be so mad if they just died there. Catharsis was a must. :-)share
I think I'd like to disagree here.
In my opinion, having either, or both, of them die would make the film mean quite a lot more.
Having both of them survive makes the film just mean, "they had a bad time for a while, but it's all better now". That sounds like a naïve view of what happens when people get stranded in dangerous places. And this isn't a romantic comedy.
It's not unheard of that people get stranded and do in fact die from time to time (no, I have no statistics). That is the logical conclusion to getting stranded without rescue. You will die. It does not matter how much you want to survive.
For more positive outlooks on life like this, I can recommend Threads (1984). ;)
I recently watched "Everest". It had an ending you speak of, and it was very unsatisfying indeed. I enjoy more of a story with struggle, near death, then human spirit rising to overcome. Movies rub off on me in many ways, and I don't like identifying with hopeless death, especially in ways where I could see myself overcoming the odds. To each their own. :-)
I understand that you want complete realism, but I prefer most of my survival movies to inspire, and motivate me. That's what I want to rub off on me; the will to survive!! :-D
Might be a cultural thing. I've seen so many "disaster" movies where there's no way in hell the protagonist could survive if it was for real, but does anyway. Because it says so in the script, and triumphant music plays in the background. That's just bad in my book. Emmerich's films spring to mind :)
If it is plausible they might survive, then sure, that (could be) fine. I guess Arctic does fall into this category.
Haven't seen Everest, but I saw it's based on something that actually happened. Then it's kind of a different thing. Essentially because there's proof of the ending. :) (unless the [email protected]#$#! film makers changed it....)
I agree, that Everest needed to end that way to stay true to events, but I still didn't like it! As the leader of the expedition, I never would have let that guy who was coughing like crazy even attempt the climb in the first place. So, these true to life stories can be a bummer to watch if you're forced to identify with such dumb decisions, hahaha :-D
And, I also agree with you, that watching the Mary Sue in the recent movie Crawl was not very satisfying. Nothing could hurt her, and it was just so over the top, that even when they survive, it was not satisfying. You're right, there's definitely a fine line between surviving due to real challenge, and surviving just for the sake of a happy ending. :-D
I agree too!share