The ending explained... - Extraction (2020) Discussion

[–] Diddy1111 (365) 4 years ago

He didn’t live. The ending was a symbolic metaphor. He was “watching over” the kid as he goes on with his life. The whole getting out of the water thing and keeping moving on. He didn’t live. He was shot in the back and then a major artery in his neck. His death was confirmed when he reunited with his son before plunging into the water. The bad guy was also killed after his death. There would be no reason for be audience to think Rake is still alive.

reply

[–] Reaperscout (582) 4 years ago

There was no one else in the movie hallucinating people or projecting people onto the battlefield at ANY POINT in the movie. The closest they came was Tyler's son, but it was all in Tyler's head. It's not like he was projecting his son onto the battlefield. So it would seem a little odd/random to start introducing supernatural stuff in the final shot of the movie. And this is pretty much like a 80's action movie. Those type of movies don't have all this literature analysis stuff in them.

The way I see as to how he could survive, Nik (woman on Tyler's team) sent a team to go recover him while the kid was being loaded onto the helicopter. She seemed to care a lot about Tyler (debatable if it was in a romantic way). So she wouldn't leave him/his body behind. She more than likely wanted him to get a proper burial/funeral. So the team she sent probably got to him in time. They probably went to just go recover the body and ended up finding that he was still alive (breathing, heart beat, and pulse) and they were able to keep him alive and get him medical treatment right away.

Originally, he did die because that's what was said in the script, but the director said they made an additional scene to leave it open-ended/ambiguous and to leave it open for a possible sequel.

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3193) 4 years ago

He didn’t live. The ending was a symbolic metaphor. He was “watching over” the kid as he goes on with his life. The whole getting out of the water thing and keeping moving on. He didn’t live. He was shot in the back and then a major artery in his neck. His death was confirmed when he reunited with his son before plunging into the water. The bad guy was also killed after his death. There would be no reason for be audience to think Rake is still alive.

^^^

actually he did live...

Just watched an interview with the director and The director said The movie was originally shot with Tyler Rake Dying, The director felt Tyler story was done, He found redemption and The Movie was supposed to end with his death....

But The movie turned out so well, The Studio and Other People who saw the movie, starting putting pressure on him to change the ending so Tyler lived, The Studio and People who saw early cuts of the film, immediately new This could be a franchise and felt There was more "Tyler Rake" stories to tell....

Thus we got the ending we got which was intentionally changed to set more sequels and to make clear "Tyler Rake could have survived"

The director did say though, that if something happened to where there werent sequels or even a sequel....Then The ending could be looked at as total Ambiguous....The director said if there arent sequels, He Will consider Tyler Story closed, That He did die, but found redemption....But Then he said, you can also absolutely have the opinion Tyler survived and that was him watching Ovi....

so bottom line....He Lived, They intentionally changed the ending to set up sequels....

and as for your theory that "The ending was a symbolic metaphor. He was “watching over” the kid as he goes on with his life."

Thats just not the case....The director didnt even remotely mention that....

Its either 100% he died(If the Studo doesnt option a sequel) or 100% he lived(If the Studio wants a sequel)

The ending was intentionally shot for the purpose of showing "He could have Lived" not as a "symbolic metaphor."

reply

[–] Diddy1111 (365) 4 years ago

First of all I didn’t watch an interview. Just the film. Why was he a blurry image in the distance then? That’s intentionally ambiguous. Anyway having him live doesn’t make much sense. Considering he got shot in the back seemingly near his heart and then in the neck near his jugular and started pouring blood before plunging into a dirty river where he would’ve gotten sepsis very quickly even if he somehow survived the fall. He even gave the “nod” to the woman before he fell indicating “I’m done, it’s ok, you take it from here.” Then she finishes the job. If they’re going with the John Wick - this guy is unkillable angle, go for it. But to your point there’s nothing 100% about that sort of ending. Your opinion is only aided by hearing an interview most wont get to hear.

reply

[–] Alex (1478) 4 years ago

Well, if there's not gonna be a sequel the way I interpreted is that Tyler Rake did die. The fact that Indian kid sees a blurry image of him after being submerged in the pool takes back all the way to the beginning where Tyler is underwater and seeing a blurry image of his son. The closer he is to death the clearer is the image and the closer he is to re-uniting with his son in the afterlife which happens at the end. Tyler did have a deathwish all this time, he didn't wanna suicide but have his death have a meaning, so dying while saving Druglord's kid was his way of achieving just that.

reply

[–] billbrown7071 (3193) 4 years ago

First of all I didn’t watch an interview. Just the film. Why was he a blurry image in the distance then? That’s intentionally ambiguous.

^^^

It was Blurry and distance because The scene was Intentionally shot to be ambiguous...

as I said, The director said...The Movie was originally shot with Tyler Dying....That is how the movie was supposed to end, But The Studio felt the movie turned out so good, They wanted The director to make a new ending where Tyler could have survived

The reason the director didnt create a New ending that 100% confirmed Tyler lived, was because There was no Guarantee the studio would go forward with sequels, only that they wanted to, The director intentionally created the new ending so there was a way Tyler could survive if The Studio went forward with sequels but also The ending works too that Tyler died, and were not sure if that really was him...The director was put in a position where He had to come up with a ambiguous ending that both suggests he could have lived and could have died

Anyway having him live doesn’t make much sense. Considering he got shot in the back seemingly near his heart and then in the neck near his jugular and started pouring blood before plunging into a dirty river where he would’ve gotten sepsis very quickly even if he somehow survived the fall. He even gave the “nod” to the woman before he fell indicating “I’m done, it’s ok, you take it from here.”

^^^

Yes this is because The Movie was written and originally shot with Tyler Dying....

No one is arguing that Tyler "should have lived"...Its clear based on the wounds he received and way the Bridge scene was shot....He absolutely should have died...That was the intent

but The Studio asked the director to ADD the ending where He was shown to maybe be alive....basically Picture the movie exactly same and there is no "Ovi swimming in the pool and seeing Blurry Tyler".....Thats how the movie was supposed to be....The scene with "Ovi/Blurry Tyler" does Not make sense because it was never supposed to be there....as you said, Its completely unrealistic that Tyler could have survived those wounds....Plus It actually Hurts his story, as the director says he LOVED the idea of Tyler Dying and finding his redemption....

But The Studio wanted him to live, so The director had to create a scene suggesting he may have lived

But to your point there’s nothing 100% about that sort of ending. Your opinion is only aided by hearing an interview most wont get to hear.

^^^

Ya I wasnt trying to take credit for being some genius who "figured out" the ending....

again Thats I why specifically said "I just watched an interview with the director"

The information I gave you came 100% from the director, not me....

but I must say....I didnt have the same "symbolic metaphor." thoughts as you did when I watched the movie...

while watching The movie, like you I absolutely thought Tyler died....Then when it said "8 month later"....and It showed the Bad guy in the bathroom, for a second, I thought "Oh shit Tyler's gonna come up behind him and kill him, somehow he survived", but then when The Lady did it, I was convinced Tyler was dead the movie was going to end like that......But then came The "Ovi/Blurry Tyler" scene, and My Immediately thought was "shit they added that for sequels"...

Then I went to youtube to see if I could find any interviews with the director or The Russo's and thats when I watched the interview with The Director confirming what happened....

and I'm not ragging on you for thinking the ending was a "symbolic metaphor."....That makes sense(especially If for some reason The Studio doesn't opt for sequel)....I just didnt have that same thought as you when I watched it...

reply

[–] TylerAArse (2654) 4 years ago

I believe he was alive. It was poorly done, but he lived.

reply

[–] Who (5146) 4 years ago

The only way this will be confirmed us if there is a sequel.

reply

[–] maximmm (3041) 4 years ago

In hollywood.... even titanic can be resurrected.

If there is a sequel - I expect there to be an intro sequence where he wakes up in bed, they tell him someone found his body - due to drowning, his heart rate slowed, thereby stopping the bleeding - his injuries were severe - he was in coma for a year, but now he's perfectly fine.

I think the only sure way to kill a character in hollywood is.... nope, there is no way you can kill a character in hollywood. He could have a twin brother, they can go sci-fi and clone his body - jeez - it's fucking hollywood.

reply

[–] Alex (1478) 4 years ago

they can even piggy back to showing him being an awesome free diver who can hold breath for up to 7 minutes underwater lol.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2782) 10 months ago

“You don’t drown falling into the river…”

reply

[–] wfujay (39) 4 years ago

I agree with your survival scenario if a sequel is made, except he couldn't have been in a coma for a year. The ending scene was indicated to be only 8 months later. I could see him recovering in 8 months if they rescued him quickly enough.

reply

[–] mrbnk (408) 4 years ago

I agree, intelligent viewers will see that he is dead, and in death he is finally redeemed. I loved the movie and the character, but i hope that don't bring him back for more. Tell us new stories, just like this one is.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2081) 4 years ago

"Only true Scotsmen..."
Do you listen to yourself?

See my post in this thread about him actually surviving, it might make you ponder a bit.

Only one thing is certain: The ending was deliberately ambiguous, so saying "everyone who thinks he survives is stoopid!" really makes you look like a complete idiot to be frank here.

Also:
“We’re not committing yet to whether that story goes forward, or backward in time. We left a big loose ending that leaves question marks for the audience.”

reply

[–] mrbnk (408) 4 years ago

Yeah, i saw your stupid comments. I know the ending is deliberately ambiguous, so you can pick one if you wish, but insisting that there is only one answer and that he can be alive after all that means you are a tool.

"He didn't really die" is a terrible cliché and i hope they don't go that way. It's also against the character arc and the theme of redemption. These are much better arguments than work cartoon logic.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2081) 4 years ago

Do you think you can have a casual discussion about a movie without insulting those you disagree with at every chance?

You admit that the ending is ambiguous, then you ignore this and call everyone who has a different opinion than you do stupid.
I am not even sure what to say to this... and while I hate to copy other people's words... the only word I can think of... is stupid.

reply

[–] TylerAArse (2654) 8 months ago

So......how intelligent are you now?

reply

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 4 years ago

The kid gives a quote early on: "Drowning doesn't happen because you fall in a river. It comes from staying submerged." Pretty on the nose. Obviously they intended for it to leave openings for sequels but ...

I prefer to believe that the kid is plagued by thinking he keeps seeing Rake. The only person that treated him like something other than a package. He can't shake the sensation of "is that him??"

Thought the action was good but a pretty shitty movie. At least we seem to have entered the Wick-quality-era of action films and have exited the Jason-Bourne-shaky-cam era.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2556) 4 years ago

You are right on every point KD637. And the replies prove that there are a good number of those who wish for a "happy ending." Any intelligent person would realize that he was shot up beyond repair and would be in no condition to hold his breath at all as he had done earlier in the movie under water. Also he was shown in his death-dreams to be reuniting with his son, and what was that for? I was perfectly content to believe that Ovi had developed strong feelings for him, the first adult who had ever really cared for him, and that after only 8 months he would still be likely to be daydreaming of him.

reply

[–] Kendricks (2081) 4 years ago

I do think it was him at the end and here is why:

His 'death' is heavily foreshadowed by the kid's quote from that book, sure.
"You do not die from falling into the river, you die from staying submerged."

However, his death-wish is something very negative and ultimately the result of mental health issues, grief to be exact. The point is to overcome this and in my interpretation he clearly did although we do not see it until the end. Otherwise the movie would literally say "wanna give up? Yeah you better do mate!"

The right thing to do is to fight, no matter what.

The quote from the book was exactly what later motivated him to NOT give up and you could see how impressed (=convinced) he was when the kid said it. Although I would assume this understanding kicked in only after submerging and here is why:

People who tried to commit suicide, especially jumpers, all later said the same: In the very moment they did let go, they already regret doing so and suddenly 'saw clearly'.
I am certain this is exactly what happened to Hemsworth here. He jumped, wanting to finally die but then realized it is a mistake, ultimately overcoming death.
As for him surviving against all odds, well yes, the whole fucking movie is "against all odds" so it is no far stretch at all that he survived.
Also as for being alone and hunted... Only the lady and the kid left by helicopter, others stayed behind on the ground. It is again not far fetched to assume this is how he was ultimately saved. We also see no body when his shooter looks down into the water, we also do not-not see it of course - to keep up tension.

Finally, the kid emerging from the pool, looking at the figure at the edge was clearly no coincidental or meaningless shot. If it would NOT have been him - why was the boy so focused on him? "Uh yeah just some new guardian or random dude." really doesn't cut it here.

reply

[–] Thaisticks (2556) 4 years ago

That's a new tack--suicide. From what I saw, he lost consciousness from hypotension caused by loss of blood. In his last fleeting moments he thought of his long-lost son, a la Maximus in Gladiator seeing a vision of his wife. The hero having died, the director wants to end on a happier note, so he shows us Ovi alive and well. But how to show that he was still missing the man who rescued him both physically and emotionally? The director decides to have him envision a ghostly apparition looking after him, which I assumed to be Rake's "spirit" still guiding over him. If he wanted to show a real flesh-and-blood person, why didn't he? Of course, these are movie makers, not usually known for their artistic integrity, so, I'm afraid, anything may happen in the sequel, such as: if Hemsworth will sign up again, big bucks are to be made with Rake miraculously resuscitated following his fall into the river!

reply

[–] Kendricks (2081) 4 years ago

"The director decides to have him envision a ghostly apparition looking after him"
Sorry but that is NOT "what the director decided", you're literally making this up.
What the director did do is giving us an ambiguous ending where both is perfectly possible.

"If he wanted to show a real flesh-and-blood person, why didn't he?"
If he wanted to let us know Rake is really dead, why didn't he and instead made an ambiguous ending on purpose?

Again, there is no "truth", there are just interpretations and that's a good thing, I enjoy reading other people's interpretations and exchange. What pisses me off are all the cunts here blatantly calling everyone "not intelligent" for having a different opinion on an ambiguous movie ending. That is the most asinine thing I read here in a while, and you all know moviechat.org...
(Not saying that is what you did, just putting this out in general)

reply

[–] johnral (138) 4 years ago

I think it's meant to be ambiguous. Someone here noted that the director wanted an option of a sequel. As a practical matter, surviving that neck wound and the fall to the water and then the water itself, plus any soldiers that might have been watching the water, would be next to impossible, even for this guy.

reply