MovieChat Forums > Altered States (1980) Discussion > Forced Hollywood Ending?

Forced Hollywood Ending?

posted 21 years ago by byzantym
40 replies | jump to latest

I remember watching this movie in the theater when I was about 17 and it freaked me out. I didn't need Nancy to tell me to "say no" to drugs after that! I've seen it recently on a premium movie channel in its entirety and still impressed by the pre-cgi cloud-chamber/composite photography that didn't look as fakey as I thought it would.

Anyway, it's the ending that I'm curious about. It just doesn't look like it was intended to end that way. It looks like the ending should have been more like Jessup and possibly his wife disintegrating into that great vortex of a higher (lower) level of being. I sensed that Chayefsky was pressured by Hollywood sensibilities of the time to concoct a happy ending perpetuating the old "love conquers all" axiom and that's why the end of the movie seems so abrupt.

Whether this was due to unfavorable audience repsonses in pre-screenings or pressure from the cinematic illuminati, it just looks a bit contrite at the end when compared to the deliberate pacing of the rest of the movie.

[–] Stay_away_from_the_Metropol 17 years ago

I completely disagree with that statement.

Without the "love conquers all" ending, the movie would hardly be worth as much as it is.

No movie has ever effected me like this movie has, and I mean that because I was lacking a certain grasp and understanding on love itself - this movie made it clear for me.

Not many other movies touch base dealing with insanity and being so close to the edge, to losing it, and how LOVE could possibly be the only medicine.

Jessup is a good man in the film, just way too far in...he almost loses it, and he almost takes his wife with him...fortunately, love saves them both just in the knick of time.

I don't know man...all I know is, I watched this movie on mushrooms, during the most horrible phase of my life, and it completely changed my life for the better. Without that ending, I might still be lost and depressed.

That's my story.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] elderesek 14 years ago

The whole thematic predicted the ending. Kinda predictable indeed.

"Money is always important because money is a by-product of success." - Mel Brooks

[–] cocopoloco 14 years ago

I couldn't disagree more. Jessup had spent his entire life searching for truth, only to discover that it exists only as we create it. A 2001-esque ending with the characters merging with the god concept would have contradicted the existentialist theme of the entire film.

[–] pninson 13 years ago

I read the novel before the movie was made, so I had a good idea of what to expect when I went to the theater.

Whatever Chayefsky's complaints about the film, it does follow the book, very closely. In fact the book is written much like a film treatment, in much the same way that Michael Crichton's and Ira Levin's novels typically do. (Both Chayefsky and Levin were playwrights.)

In any case, Chayefsky is responsible for the ending, no matter how you slice it.

We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.

[–] Herreken 11 years ago

pninson

I read the novel before the movie was made, so I had a good idea of what to expect when I went to the theater.

Whatever Chayefsky's complaints about the film, it does follow the book, very closely. In fact the book is written much like a film treatment, in much the same way that Michael Crichton's and Ira Levin's novels typically do. (Both Chayefsky and Levin were playwrights.)

In any case, Chayefsky is responsible for the ending, no matter how you slice it.

I saw the movie first then decided to read the book. I was surprised at how closely the movie followed the book. I was also surprised to hear that the writer disowned the movie. It was a good adaptation of the book.

I didn't think that the film ending was tacked on or intended to end a different way.

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

[–] bgordon1234 11 years ago

The ending wasn't forced at all! If any of you were to actually read the freaking book you would find that the ending int he book is EXACTLY the same! The screenplay was written by Paddy even though he later disowned it because he wasn't happy with the direction of the film by Ken Russell.

The ending might seem contrite but it's taken directly from the book. Go read it and educate yourself!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AndreiPavlov 8 years ago

The happy ending let me down too but the main problems were these:
1) the final music (it was too upbeat for this depressing movie);
2) the special effects (after the deformations of the two, which were quite nice, there came flying bubbles/fireflies, simple disappearance and reappearance, which made it all look like a cheap fairytale).

And yes, it's too bad they followed the book in this section (if it ends the same way). The final frames of e.g. "From Beyond" are much more realistic and striking (one person gets insane - the other dies, meaning you cannot get with the experiments this far and walk away with a smile on your face).

Tastes differ of course.

Nu chto gliadite? Ne poluchali davno?

[–] shlone3 8 years ago

I liked it.