# Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome



## Kyle R (Jan 2, 2015)

It's officially 2015, and I have a new pet peeve. I call it, “Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome,” or DIES for short. Ever since identifying DIES (patent pending—well, not really), I've noticed it all over fiction. What makes this such a tragic problem is that it's so easily avoided.

What is DIES? Put simply, it's when a story resolves the plot, but then _ends there_, with no _character_ resolution whatsoever. No "after the conflict" scene. No hint of the characters continuing on. No emotional resonance at all.






_Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome—confusing readers since the dawn of time!_
​
Had Steven Spielberg's classic _Jurassic Park_ been stricken with DIES, the movie would have ended with the T-Rex hurling the velociraptor against the skeleton, then roaring as the banner fluttered to the ground. THE END.

Roll credits.

Audiences would have scratched their heads, wondering what happened to Dr. Grant, Ellie, and the kids. They would have left the theater feeling confused. Something about it all would have seemed off, like it was missing something.

That missing something would have been *character resolution*. It's a separate element from *plot resolution*, and as such, deserves its own obligatory scene (or scenes).

The character resolution in _Jurassic Park_, that Spielberg so wisely ended with? Dr. Grant, Ellie, and the kids riding off into the sunset in a helicopter, safe and together—a new family.

Resolving your characters is a huge deal. Monumental. Of goliath proportions. It's not enough to simply resolve your plot and call it a wrap. 

Consider the following:

Risk-averse George visits his sister, Abigail, and her seven-year-old daughter, Cassie. Cassie is working on a homemade volcano for science class. Abigail helps her, mussing her daughter's hair affectionately while they apply clay to the side of the incomplete mountain. 

That night, a robber breaks in, shoots Abigail in the chest, and runs off with her jewelry. Abigail dies on the floor in George's arms.

“I'll find him,” George assures Cassie, while she looks up at him, tears streaming down her face. “I won't let him get away.”

Struggling to overcome his aversion to risk, George chases his sister's killer throughout the entire story. Due to some plot contrivance, the police are useless. George is on his own. To make matters worse, the killer taunts him, saying, “I'm glad your sister's dead! She won't be the last, either! I'll find that daughter of hers and kill her, too!” Ooh, what a bastard! Get him, George!

In the final scene, George, vigilante-style, no longer afraid of the world, knocks the bastard to his knees, points a pistol at his forehead, and says, “This is for Abby and Cassie, you son of a--” _POW!_

THE END.

Is that it? Really? What's missing here?

We've resolved the *plot*, but we haven't resolved our *characters*! What about George and Cassie? It's such a simple fix.

What a difference it would make if, after the gunshot, we see George and Cassie together, in the kitchen, working to complete the lopsided volcano. It's not a completely happy ending (Abby died, after all), but it's a character resolution, one that does a whole lot more for your reader than simply ending on a gunshot.

You've got to give your characters an ending, too. At least, if you want your readers or your audience to stick around for your next work.

Don't let Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome get the best of you. Your plot may be the engine that drives things, but your *characters* are the real heart of your story. Give them an ending that they deserve. :encouragement:


----------



## dale (Jan 2, 2015)

> “Every ending is arbitrary, because the end is where you write The end. A period, a dot of punctuation, a point of stasis. A pinprick in the paper: you could put your eye to it and see through, to the other side, to the beginning of something else."
> --Margaret Atwood


----------



## Laughing Duck 137z (Jan 2, 2015)

On my outline or when I create a story idea I always have a DIES type of ending. Its not until my rough draft that I really understand my characters and that's when I give them the ending they deserve.


----------



## Boofy (Jan 2, 2015)

Some good advice to bear in mind ^^ And DIES is clever :3

I find that a great many examples can be seen in slice of life animes, or any anime for that matter. They have a horrible way of leaving things open ended or twisting them into bizarre, misshapen things that you can no longer relate to the beginning of the series. </3


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 2, 2015)

I agree with something like your Jurassic Park example. I'm not so sure about the second one, however. I wouldn't be _that _upset about the shoot the bad guy END (since a lot of the story appears to be about George "Struggling to overcome his aversion to risk") - but the volcano ending would've seemed syrupy sweet to me - and that would have been the death knell, IMO. Sometimes an 'open' ending actually works better than a 'wrap it up with a bow' ending.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 2, 2015)

Good tip, I don't want to dies laughing.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 2, 2015)

I can't stand bad endings. Even if I've loved the story/movie for the entire length (a wonderful beginning and stellar middle!) then the ending leaves me hanging in anyway, I will dislike it completely. The beginning and middle won't matter to me anymore. It'll be forgotten and the terrible ending will be the only thing I focus on. 

I very much agree with what you've said!


----------



## Bishop (Jan 2, 2015)

I will say, there's exceptions to this rule. While I agree that I want to know what happens after the plot, the only time I think I've seen it work, it works perfectly, and that's in The Thing. (Seriously, did you expect something else?)

The Thing ends with the biggest, most masterful question mark in the history of film, and it's about the only time I've been satisfied with the ambiguous ending.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 2, 2015)

The original Italian Job?


----------



## dale (Jan 2, 2015)

i have to admit...i like ambiguous endings. because unless i'm just gonna kill every character in the story off, or tack on
"and they all lived happily ever after"...the story just has to "end" when i feel like it should.


----------



## Sc0pe (Jan 2, 2015)

to me the ending is just about the most important thing in the story. It can make or break it I agree that DIES in most cases would and can be jarring. But in some I have to admit an open ending, a through provoking one can make a good ending masterful. Take inception's ending for instance. The pin spines and the screen blacks out before you could see if he was in a dream or not.

So was he in a dram? Did he really get out? I heared meany people debate over this. Or is that even important? In the end he was with his children and maybe that was all that mattered. But you see that is what makes it such a great ending. It tied things up just enough to make you know it's the end but leaves JUST enough to keep people thinking and pondering over what took place.

I see ending a story is like deciding when to slam the breaks on a bike when you are approaching the cliff. You want to come off the beaten path and slam the breaks just before bother tiers go over but You know that if you a traction of a second to slow it will all come tumbling down becoming a less memorable piece. You have all the time to perfect that but your edge may be further back form someone else.

The closing scene in my book has changed a little here and there but it's more or less the same. It what keeps me writing because i think it's just enough to close the characters journey but leave things open enough to keep people wondering what happend next making them think up there own scene from there. I just hope i nailed it XD.


----------



## Folcro (Jan 2, 2015)

I checked the OP because I just had to see if Stephen King would be mentioned. To my great surprise, he was not.

I would like to address the other Steven in the room though...

I thought it was a funny example, because that ending, in my opinion, defines what you call "DIES." Firstly, it didn't have character resolution. It just showed the survivors on a helicopter smiling at each other to sappy music. They weren't a family, and there's nothing to indicate that they were about to become one. Oh, Satler mentioned in the beginning of the movie that she wants kids? Well, no, she still does not have them. What she might have is a lawsuit, but that's a whole other issue. 

But the biggest sin was an aspect of crappy endings that was not mentioned in the OP: Deus Ex Machina. We all remember it: every character we love is together, each having fought through hell to get to where they are, each now at their absolute lowest point that they have been, a pack of raptors closing in on them. Then poof. T-rex. Loud roar, funny line, sappy music, roll credits.

Just figured I'd add my own little extension to an issue that aggravates me as well. I don't think the ending is the most important part of every story (emphasis on EVERY), but writers seem to forget that it is at least as important as the rest of every story.


----------



## Apex (Jan 2, 2015)

Before I write a story, I know what the whole story is about. I do the first page, or two, then the last two pages. I may change parts of those last two pages, but I am never lost were the story is going. It is like tying to shoe strings together. You can't do one at a time...both have to be done at the sme time.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 2, 2015)

I absolutely HATE endings that wrap up what the characters are doing. In most cases it absolutely ruins the novel for me. I can't tell you how many times I've forced myself to finish a novel, wishing it would've ended twenty pages earlier. 

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this advice. Let the reader decide what happens to your characters. 

Like Bishop said, one of the best endings is in The Thing. One of the worst wrapped up endings came from Frank Darabont's excellent/terrible adaptation of King's The Mist. That ending wrapped up the story, as this post suggests, and made the entire movie suck. Now, when I watch The Mist, I purposely stop where King ended the story. 

Sometimes the reader/viewer doesn't need to know how the characters' lives turn out. Sometimes what's better is allowing the reader/viewer to savor that delectably sweet ending (you know, when you're on the edge of your seat, and the plot has been resolved in such a way that it makes you LOVE the story).  

Actually, in my novel it ends with the main character (a young boy) driving away from a blood bath after a few thousand creatures that dwell only in darkness are unleashed upon the world. Yep...I don't care what happens to the kid, neither should the reader.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 2, 2015)

FleshEater said:


> Actually, in my novel it ends with the main character (a young boy) driving away from a blood bath after a few thousand creatures that dwell only in darkness are unleashed upon the world. Yep...I don't care what happens to the kid, neither should the reader.



Hi Flesheater, I have a question for you. This sentence sort of piqued my interest. 

If I were to read your story, am I supposed to care more about the world you created, or the character I follow for the entire novel? 

I guess I'm confused why you wouldn't want me, as your reader, to care about your character? Why would I get to know them through the story, follow their triumphs and their failures, root for them, and then not care what happens to them? You did say they were your main character and not a throwaway right? 

For me, if I don't love a character, I don't love the world either. If I love the character, I want to know what happens to them at the end, and how they survive or perish in that world.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 2, 2015)

*TLDR* at the bottom. 

I like the spirit of avoiding DIES, but I think we also have to look at how a story is constructed in order to tell how best to "resolve" all the loose-ends. For instance, movies are often stories that take place in a number of hours or days. Relationships and characters are built rapidly and a great deal of focus, by necessity, has to be devoted towards constructing the plot elements. As movie-goers, we sort of naturally understand this process. For instance, if Jack and Jane live in a three-bedroom house with a picket fence, two-and-a-half children and a cat-dog, they're "normal." They will do whatever it is that "normal" people do after defeating the ghosts, monsters, aliens or collection-agents. But, take two dissimilar characters in a unique situation and add in subplots, especially a budding romance, and now you HAVE to tie that up as well as your cleverly constructed plot.

The worst kiss in movie history was between Bill Murray and Sigourny Weaver in "Ghostbusters." And, it's not because Bill Murray is a bad kisser. (I wouldn't know, we have incompatible plumbing.) However, it's the worst kiss in movie history because it was a hamfisted way to resolve their poorly developed "romance subplot." But, what were the producers going to do? Should they have finished with a blockbuster ending and then spend ten minutes proudly screening mind-numbingly boring romantic fumbles and smarmy one-liners? No, that would have killed the whole movie! So, they just killed the romance subplot, instead. Face-it: After being basically raped, turned into a dog and then busted out of a piece of decrepit hide, Weaver's character isn't going to be very enthusiastic about getting all sloppy-kissed. And, after using his giant gun to fire intense streams of uber-powerful lightning in order to defeat a giant monster threatening the city and win the adulation of millions, Murray's character isn't going to feel like... well.. OK, so Sigourny's character isn't going to want a big romantic smooch. 

But, they had _no choice_. The only way to make it "work" would have been to push the romance angle stronger. They couldn't do that and still keep the movie within time/budget. So, we get hamfisted resolutions of a romantic subplot in "Ghostbusters." And, as movie-goers, we _expect_ that with certain types of movies, like action and horror. In fact, we're generally fine with it.

In books, however, where events can take place over millennia, we have different expectations. A romantic sub-plot is going to crop up fairly early, if there is one. (At least, a strong romantic subplot worth reading about.) But, a book still has to do everything else that is necessary in order to build the plot and drama, just like a movie. The difference is that you, as a Reader, are a valid target for "boring bits." If you go to get a snack or to use the restroom, the book is still going to be there, waiting for you - You'll have to read it in order to move it forward. Luckily, the writer has baited you well and you can tolerate those first sweaty fumblings until you get hooked on the romantic sub-plot.

Resolution of that sort of thing can be fairly simple in books, as well. The romantic subplot can be wound up fairly easily - "And they lived happily ever after." You didn't think that line was just a coda, did you? It's not something as obligatory as "Amen." It is exactly what it is supposed to be - Resolution for "everything else" in the story. We can be happy with that, as well. But.... Remember what I said about Jack and Jane and two-and-a-half dogs and a boy/girl? Right! Normal people, right? A natural sort of thing, nothing surprising with them, right? They're just normal people in an extraordinary situation, right? Right. If they lose their home, what are they going to do? Must we read about them applying for insurance and a new mortgage? No. However, if they're two bounty-hunters and one of them is still possessed by evil spirits, despite having defeated the evil necromancer, we might need something more to resolve their particular romantic subplot. How are they going to get to sloppy-kiss if the guy keeps trying to eat her soul?

The point is - The more complexity that's mixed within a subplot, the more difficult a "hanging resolution" like "And they lived happily ever after" is going to be. Look at it this way: Game of Thrones, Season Thirty-Five - The sea finally dries up and the barbarian horde is, at last, able to cross it. Martin's dragons, aged, crumbling things, on crutches and clutching their enema bags, are finally able to assault the land at the head of a mighty barbarian army that vaguely remembers how to do "war stuffs." The "White Walkers" have stormed The Wall and, though we know what they look like, we still don't know why they'd bother. I mean, the realm isn't exactly someplace one would like to vacation in. Anyway, it's not important - Everyone is descending on the Kingdom and they're out for blood! The bloodlines are squabbling amongst themselves, ten princes, a half-a-dozen courtiers, three main characters and fifty whores have died, and that was just at lunch! Old gods are waking up and new ones are pretty pissed off at everyone, in general. Everything is in a shambles! And then.... Climactic battle, champion wins the day.. "And they lived happily ever after." NO! In fact, if this happened, the first thing you'd do is storm the studios. Then, there'd be a hunt for Martin and the only way he could possibly escape is if he masqueraded as a garden gnome for a few years, until things blew over. (He can't do that, though. That damn hat would give him away.)

In my opinion, what we dislike is when complexity is introduced into subplots and then they're treated like they can be handled with "And they lived happily ever after." Sure, you can throw such a tagline on a normal subplot, something that would have a certain degree of an "expected" resolution, without any significant doubts involved in the outcome. But, with something that is complex or unusual, steps have to be taken to guide it towards "the natural" sort of subplot resolution that we would expect. Likely, in something like a fantasy or science-fiction piece, the writer is going to have to set up a Setting in which certain "natural" evolutions are expected, even if they're unique when compared to our mundane worlds. So, we know, for instance, that all wizards who demonstrate that they can control the wind end up as heads of their order. We know this because the writer told us so, early in the story. And, when, in the end, the main character vanquishes his foes by controlling the wind, we see him stand triumphant and watch the other wizards bow before him. We "know" what will happen next. We don't need to be told. We know he will assume his rightful post as head of his order and he'll sit down at a desk and start getting fat. It's natural. It's expected. It's what we were already told, three-hundred pages earlier. ("Foreshadowing" is what all the cool kids are using, these days.)

Every sort of plot should have a resolution. But, they all don't have to have the same level of detail in their resolutions. The more complex the subplot, or the more unusual, the more attention that must be given towards working out a satisfactory resolution for it. A Reader's doubts, naturally born, about possible resolutions should be eased where possible, as long as doing so doesn't detract from the overall story. The resolution of a subplot should not overshadow the main plot. If it does, one should probably have been writing about it, instead. There are ways to prepare the ground for satisfactory, yet swift, resolutions of complex subplots. For example, using foreshadowing is a good trick, like in the short example, above. Subplots can also be resolved, at length, before the main plot. Just 'cause it's the "main plot" doesn't mean it has to come first, before everything else. In fact, most subplots worthy of the name get resolved just before the main-plot, sometimes even within the same scene.

*TLDR* To sum: Sorry, didn't mean to go on so much on this.  The point is - Pay attention to how much complexity and how many different sorts of elements are being brought to bear on a subplot. The more complexity it has and the more unique it is, the more difficult it's going to be to resolve without overshadowing the main plot.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 3, 2015)

I enjoy ambiguous endings (they seem to work well in the horror genre), but I usually don't consider those DIES endings.

John Carpenter's _The Thing_ (1982) ended with Childs and MacReady talking in the cold.

[video=youtube;GA4Ozqt7338]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA4Ozqt7338[/video]

In the end we aren't sure if either of them are infected, though that uncertainty has spawned discussions and theories for decades!

That's not a DIES ending, to me. To me, Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome would have happened if the film had ended _before_ that scene: with MacReady blowing up the camp and killing the monster. THE END. Roll credits. :grief:

Audiences would have wondered, "What happened to MacReady? How about Childs?" These would have been loose ends—dangling characters that would never have been addressed.

Wisely ("Epically!" some would say ), the film ended with a character resolution (open-ended, yes, but a resolution nonetheless). An "after the conflict" scene between the two remaining characters, implying either a grisly fate, or a potential rescue on the horizon.

I don't believe you have to tie things up in a neat bow for all your characters. But I _do_ believe you should address all the main characters in your ending in some way. And if you have an emotional (internal) arc in your story, that arc needs to be resolved in some manner, in the same way your external arc begs for resolution.

When we consult the dictionary for the word *resolution*, there's one definition that I think works really well with fiction. It's a definition that applies, interestingly enough, to chemistry, of all things!

Resolution: the process of reducing or separating something into its components.

When I complain about DIES endings, I'm not complaining about intentionally ambiguous endings. I'm complaining about endings where the writer has failed to acknowledge and resolve all the individual components of their story, most especially when it's done to resolve the plot but the characters are left forgotten, dangling in the wind while the credits roll.


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 3, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> ...John Carpenter's _The Thing_ (1982) ended with Childs and MacReady talking in the cold...



Dude! That is one of my favorite movie-endings of ALL TIME! I love that darn ending! It's... ginormous! The open-ended style works so naturally with that particular movie and it's intrique component that it's simply the best possible ending that movie could have had. Brilliant and heady stuff! (It might even be my favorite "ending" of all time in any movie.)



> That's not a DIES ending, to me. To me, Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome would have happened if the film had ended _before_ that scene: with MacReady blowing up the camp and killing the monster. THE END. Roll credits. :grief:



Absofrigginlutley!



> ...When I complain about DIES endings, I'm not complaining about intentionally ambiguous endings. I'm complaining about endings where the writer has failed to acknowledge and resolve all the individual components of their story, most especially when it's done to resolve the plot but the characters are left forgotten, dangling in the wind while the credits roll.



Exactly.

I think you brought up something very important, though - Theme and Resolutions.

Let's take "The Thing" as an example. What was the best ending possible? THAT ONE! But, why? 

We have the "resolution" of the primary plot in the destruction of "the monster" by MacReedy. But, the theme of the movie is a sort of "masked man" theme - Who is "the shadow?" We see the "monster" defeated, but in keeping with the theme, is it really defeated? After all, anyone could be a monster! And, this theme gets amplified in the ending. With the blockbuster ending of the main plot, the suplot of "Childs is missing" is also resolved, immediately, then all fades to black... And, that resolution builds _directly_ on the "monsters are anybody" theme. Taking a portion of the story's mechanics, especially a primary theme, and using that to spice up a blockbuster ending is something we see in lots of movies, especially "mystery" and "horror" movies or movies with special sorts of antagonists or barriers. That "they are defeated, for now..." sort of ending works perfectly with these stories if the viewer/Reader is toyed with at the end. After all, the Viewer/Reader came to be toyed with, anyway, didn't they?


----------



## Bishop (Jan 4, 2015)

I only brought it up because people have tried to convince me it's a non-ending, like Carpenter took an easy way out without actually finishing their stories. It doesn't fully resolve what happens to them, in essence. If it did, we wouldn't have that question mark. But it's certainly not dumb. I think an argument can be made that it's incomplete, but it's masterfully incomplete--to the point of being perfectly complete.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 4, 2015)

There are some stories where "finishing" them would be so anti-climactic that it would just be a let-down, and degrade the rest of the story. Readers don't always need or want resolution. I've read many books where, while not wrapped up in a bow, the author just couldn't shut up and insisted on a "finish" which was totally unnecessary. That, to me, is as bad, if not worse, than leaving holes (especially when the resolution I projected and actually wanted was totally different). Part of that is the author wanting too much control, and part of it, IMO, is the author attempting to add the twist ending. Both lead to failure.


----------



## Sam (Jan 4, 2015)

So what are you saying here -- that every story has to end happily ever after? 

I had main characters lose their lives, their jobs, their significant others, and sometimes even their sanity at the end of stories. 

My fiction is a reflection of the real world, and in the real world "happily ever after" seldom happens.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jan 4, 2015)

With the exception of the Apocalypse, life goes on. Streets get swept, kids go to school and tears are shed. (I may use this as an opening line).


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 4, 2015)

Must all stories end on a _happily ever after_ note? Not at all! I love downer endings too. They can be extremely powerful when done well. 

I also am not saying ambiguous endings are a problem for me.

I have a short story currently under consideration with a professional market. It ends with my protagonist in the middle of an attempted escape, while her pursuers are closing in. 

The reader has no idea whether or not she'll escape or be captured. It ends on a note of complete uncertainty.

But it's a _complete_ ending (in my opinion) because all other story threads and characters have been addressed.

Mostly, that's what I was attempting to communicate in the original post. The importance of _addressing_ (perhaps "resolution" was not the best word choice, in hindsight) any story elements that have been developed up to that point.

Intentionally ending on an ambiguous or downer note isn't what I was warning against. It's when a writer _unintentionally_ ends prematurely, forgetting to address other arcs (character arcs mostly, but sometimes plot-lines as well) that they may have been developing throughout the story.

I read a screenplay recently where the ending was (to me) perfectly complete and satisfying. All threads are addressed, the character arc resolved. 

Then I saw the theatrical version of the story, and they truncated the story to end on the climax, instead. Omitting the screenwriter's final scene.

To me, it was a total blunder. 

A reviewer on RottenTomatoes.com agrees with me, saying: The ending feels stale and useless compared to the rest of the film. . .

Here's the original screenplay ending, as written by Seth Lochead:


*205 INT/EXT. TUNNELS/TUNNEL MOUTH. GALINKA - CONTINUOUS 205
*
          HANNA runs back through the tunnels.

​*                         HANNA
*          No more. No more.
​          Tears are streaming down her face as she reaches sight of the
          tunnel mouth and the daylight beyond. 

Standing in silhouette is MARISSA. 

HANNA slows her pace and stops when she can see
          the white of MARISSA'S eyes and the finger on MARISSA'S
          trigger.

MARISSA raises the gun and aims at HANNA - but HANNA comes
          forward again, walking calmly towards her.
She stops and drops her gun to the ground.

​*          HANNA (CONT'D)
*          Everything I see is nothing I want.​ 
MARISSA looks at HANNA, her gentle, childlike countenance.
          She smiles.


​*                         MARISSA
*          Let me take care of you?
​*                         HANNA
*          No. I don't want that.​ 
HANNA turns her back on MARISSA and starts to walks in the
          opposite direction.

MARISSA watches her walk away.

HANNA walks, waiting for the shot to come.

​*                         MARISSA
*          Hanna.
​          HANNA spins, fires directly at CAMERA.

*          CUT TO BLACK.
*

*          206 EXT. FOREST. NORTH SWEDEN. 206
*
*                         FADE UP:
*          The sun spreads its golden fingers through the trees catching
          the early morning dew.

*          113.
*          A wide shot of the HANNA'S cabin, wisps of smoke rise from
          it's chimney.

          HANNA steps out of the cabin. She's back wearing her furs
          again. In her hands she carries a cup of hot milk and a small
          wooden bowl.

          In VOICE-OVER we hear HANNA reading from her beloved
          Encyclopedia.

​*          HANNA (V.O.)
*          The Earth is the third planet from
          the Sun, and the fifth-largest of
          the eight planets in the Solar
          System.
​          HANNA sits down on a tree trunk outside the cabin and pours
          some milk into the bowl, then drinks a little for herself.

​*          HANNA (V.O.) (CONT'D)
*          Home to millions of species,
          including humans, Earth is the only
          place in the universe where life is
          known to exist.
​          She raises her head and makes a small clicking sound. Her
          friend, the snow fox, appears from the trees. The fox now has
          a small family of cubs.

          HANNA watches as the cubs approach the milk and begin to
          drink.

​*          HANNA (V.O.) (CONT'D)
*          The planet formed over four and a
          half billion years ago, and life
          appeared on its surface within a
          billion years.
​          HANNA sits back and feels the sunlight on her face. Above her
          the trees are beginning to leaf.

​*          HANNA (V.O.) (CONT'D)
*          It is expected to continue
          supporting life for another one and
          a half billion years, after which
          the rising luminosity of the Sun
          will eliminate it all.
​          HANNA surveys her beautiful world.

*          THE END


*​How did the film end? A scene earlier, with the gunshot and the cut to black.

[video=youtube;hnNTXWw0Bpo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnNTXWw0Bpo[/video]

To me, this was a Dumb Incomplete Ending. I see the gunshot ending as more of a gimmick ending, meant to shock and awe. 

But the story, to me, wasn't about killing Marissa. The story (to me) was about Hanna freeing herself from this violence-filled life and starting a new life on her own. The whole film seemed to lean in that direction. 

Yes, the *plot arc* was about the cat and mouse chase between Hanna and Marissa. 

The *character arc*, though? That was about Hanna discovering how to live life as a normal teenage girl. That arc was developed and established throughout the story, then completely forgotten in favor of the gunshot ending. 

To me? An example of an otherwise great film ruined by *Dumb Incomplete Ending Syndrome*. :encouragement:


----------



## Morkonan (Jan 4, 2015)

Bishop said:


> ... I think an argument can be made that it's incomplete, but it's masterfully incomplete--to the point of being perfectly complete.



It's a perfect thematic ending for that film. Perfect.


----------



## Sam (Jan 4, 2015)

What you're talking about isn't dumb incomplete ending syndrome. It's a failure to tie together all the loose ends that you have created over the course of the novel or story. That's just poor writing. 

Ending anti-climactically or ambiguously is only poor writing when it's done incorrectly. When it's done correctly, it's powerful.


----------



## Sc0pe (Jan 4, 2015)

I was already on the same page as you when i replied the first time. But i think this dose put it across better about where your coming form. I agree. Endings can come in meany different forms but what needs to be there is not so much plot completion but character resolution.

If your character dose not need another scene after the plot ending to resolve how his journey effected him and maybe the people around him, if it was all covered in tangent with the plot then it's complete.

But if you had things going on through the story,transformation of a character though scene to scene witch then amounts to nothing, no happy or sad ending to his journey, if it just ends in that moment the plot has been closed and these problems that what made important where not addressed then I think that will make for a downer ending.

And throwing twists that late in the game can make things go rocky unless you plan on making a sequel. I mean just imagine if star-wars ended  just after Luke finds out that Darfvader is his father. He falls into the pit and credit rolls. *shivers*

The plot is the road that drives the characters. So the least you could do is park the car safely in a garage once it reaches the end of the track. Weather it be a in scraps after the bumpy ride or not. Don't just leave it on the road.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 4, 2015)

What you are talking about is the denouement of the story, and, yes, every well written story should have one.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Jan 5, 2015)

I guess I was the only one who read the OP and realized they were trying to say that while you can have a "anti-climactic or ambiguous" ending, you do need to at least give the audience the tools to come to their own conclusion. 

EDIT: Oh, didn't see page 2, my bad. Still, I was one of the few!


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 5, 2015)

Sunny said:


> Hi Flesheater, I have a question for you. This sentence sort of piqued my interest.
> 
> If I were to read your story, am I supposed to care more about the world you created, or the character I follow for the entire novel?
> 
> ...



Not all stories are character-driven.  In fact, sometimes the character is simply a vehicle to push the plot forward.  In those cases, the attraction is what and why something is happening, rather than who it's happening to.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 5, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Not all stories are character-driven.  In fact, sometimes the character is simply a vehicle to push the plot forward.  In those cases, the attraction is what and why something is happening, rather than who it's happening to.



Yes, and I've got a couple favorite authors whose MCs I absolutely can't stand - if I met them in a bar I'd walk out, frankly. But the story itself draws me in, and while I may use some rather salty words at things those MCs do and say, I keep reading because I have to know what happens. And darned if I won't buy the next book with the same idiot MCs! LOL


----------



## Sunny (Jan 5, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Yes, and I've got a couple favorite authors whose MCs I absolutely can't stand - if I met them in a bar I'd walk out, frankly. But the story itself draws me in, and while I may use some rather salty words at things those MCs do and say, I keep reading because I have to know what happens. And darned if I won't buy the next book with the same idiot MCs! LOL



I find this fascinating actually. 

I couldn't follow a character through a world, no matter how awesome that world was, if I didn't like them. It would feel like I didn't like myself (after all, I do want to become that lead character for the time I'm in that story). 

I am so stumped how you could keep reading and loving a story even though you think the character is an idiot. Not in a bad way, it's just strange to me. I've read stories where I loved what was happening, but couldn't stand the character so it drew me away from it all and I had to walk away... just like your bar scenario. 

It's like following someone around that I can't stand, thinking they're an idiot, and wanting to know how it all turns out for them. 

Pretty cool how we enjoy such different things. I think it's fun to learn how different we can be. Characters drive the story for me more than the story itself.


----------



## Bishop (Jan 5, 2015)

I find myself often following characters I hate in fiction. I'm fascinated by what happens to them, and am always able to empathize with them on some level. Maybe I'm an inherent bastard myself, but I can often find a redeeming quality or two in even the worst of characters, provided they're decently written. An example is a novel I recently read where the main character was an artificially made human with no emotions. He was cold, calculating in his logical stance on most everything, but for some reason had a sense of loyalty to people who had been loyal to him. He didn't know why he was returning that loyalty, but he did it anyway because he felt it right. He didn't love them, barely even reacted to them, and was often frustrated (in his own strange way--emotionless, yet feigning anger to get them to do things) by them. Loyalty not for loyalty's sake, but reciprocation... I found him unlikable a lot of times, but his oddity still endeared me.

Then there's things like Game of Thrones where there's just characters you love to hate...


----------



## dale (Jan 5, 2015)

there's some very despicable characters in fiction that are likable. count dracula and hannibal lecter come to mind.
i doubt if i'd really sit down with either of them and have nachos and beer. i'd be too concerned with myself ending
up as dessert. but they're great characters.


----------



## Sam (Jan 5, 2015)

Sunny said:


> I find this fascinating actually.
> 
> I couldn't follow a character through a world, no matter how awesome that world was, if I didn't like them. It would feel like I didn't like myself (after all, I do want to become that lead character for the time I'm in that story).
> 
> ...



Read Jeffrey Archer's _Kane and Abel. _

It has two totally unlikeable main characters, but it's one of the most powerful stories ever written. Why? Because it's not about the characters. The story drives the novel forward. It's what happens to the two men, Abel Rosnoski and William Kane, that makes it one of the all-time greatest stories. It takes place over a quarter of a century and documents the struggles of two men born on the same day, but thousands of miles apart, as they try to build an empire. Neither of them are going to win the most relatable character ever award, but ask the millions of people who've read and enjoyed it if they care about that. 

Sometimes, if the story is great enough, the characters don't matter one iota. 
.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 5, 2015)

One of the characters I detest is politically my opposite, and his methods (he's a police detective) make me want to run to the nearest civil rights attorney. But in these books, it's the solving of the crime, the unmasking or simply the catching of the criminal that drives the whole thing. I'm quite certain that the books would be even better without this cretin - but they're fantastic reading even so. And I'll admit a pervous glee when this detective gets the crap kicked out of him now and then - just doesn't happen often enough for me! LOL  But yes, I love the ins and outs of the investigation, the chess game between the cops and the criminals. So even though I write character driven stories, I also love reading stuff where the plot trumps characters. (And it has helped me balance my own writing so it's not ALL about the characters.)


----------



## Bishop (Jan 5, 2015)

Another example, that's not in a novel but in film, is the recent series "True Detective". I hated both Woody Harrellson and Matt McConaughey's characters for so many reasons, but I kept watching because what they were doing fascinated me. And, in the end, they were fighting for what was right when no one else would--kind of a classic 'the world needs bastards' moment. Fantastic series, by the way.

In fact, the only characters I genuinely hate, and would put down a book over, are the ones who are poorly written or unrealistically made.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 5, 2015)

For me it's the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.  Anyone who's seen in knows the main character is simply insufferable - whiny, cowardly, never quite good enough, never quite someone to root for.  Almost all of the characters are like that.  And yet, the series is so compelling, because of the story and because of the character development.  I don't mean the characters get more likeable; far from it.  But the way they deteriorate is done quite well, and you can't help being drawn in.


----------



## Nippon Devil (Jan 5, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> For me it's the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.  Anyone who's seen in knows the main character is simply insufferable - whiny, cowardly, never quite good enough, never quite someone to root for.  Almost all of the characters are like that.  And yet, the series is so compelling, because of the story and because of the character development.  I don't mean the characters get more likeable; far from it.  But the way they deteriorate is done quite well, and you can't help being drawn in.



I was actually going to respond and say Shinji was an example of the exact opposite. I loved the series, and part of that was because the children were so VERY screwed up mentally. But the last two episodes killed it for me. Yes, the movie that was designed to replace the last two episodes was a step in the right direction, but it still failed. The director was more interested in having an open ended ending without any real character resolution. Of course, there are plenty of people who share both of our view points. That just goes to show you that sometimes, there is no "perfect" ending for a story. Not from a creator's standpoint anyway.

But I will agree, It was interesting to watch up until that point.


----------



## Sc0pe (Jan 5, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> For me it's the anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.  Anyone who's seen in knows the main character is simply insufferable - whiny, cowardly, never quite good enough, never quite someone to root for.  Almost all of the characters are like that.  And yet, the series is so compelling, because of the story and because of the character development.  I don't mean the characters get more likeable; far from it.  But the way they deteriorate is done quite well, and you can't help being drawn in.



I see what you mean. He is made whiny and bothersome true but because of the world and the story it was trying to tell it worked. And dont forget the most important thing is that he developed throughout the series. Now if he was no different then he was at the start, if he never learned anything or come to termed with something in nither a good or bad sence then that would have been a crime. A character without development is like a car without an engine. Sure the car may look nice but once you try take it for a spin you will be sorely dissopointed. Might as well place it on a trope museum and call it a day.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 7, 2015)

Nippon Devil said:


> But the last two episodes killed it for me. Yes, the movie that was designed to replace the last two episodes was a step in the right direction, but it still failed. The director was more interested in having an open ended ending without any real character resolution.



Those last two episodes are nothing BUT character resolution for Shinji.  I was baffled by it the first time I saw it, but upon rewatching, I found I really liked the message and the conclusion.


----------



## FleshEater (Jan 8, 2015)

Sunny said:


> Hi Flesheater, I have a question for you. This sentence sort of piqued my interest.
> 
> If I were to read your story, am I supposed to care more about the world you created, or the character I follow for the entire novel?
> 
> ...



I see a lot of people have already spoken up. But, as Kyle said, in horror these endings not only work, but are also popular. Whether it falls in line with the downtrodden, and sometimes depressing theme horror suggests, or it's just a way of saying life's a bitch no matter what; it's perfectly fine ending a story with your character clearing one hurdle, which is what the entire novel or story is usually about, and not resolving what happens next. What would I say, anyways? That he continued to run from these things with his dead (7 year old) sister in the car beside him? C'mon...the cliffhanger leaves the reader wondering what happened to the WORLD after those creatures were let out of the house. 

A lot of times horror does not resolve characters after the plot ends. And it's not necessary. Because a lot of times, if you think about a plot, it can stand for a lot more than just a story to tell, and be more powerful than the characters themselves. A Serbian Film is a good example of this. You never really get to know the characters, and the story is more about the plot, which is to portray the Serbian government in an...uh...cinematic way? Kind of like Salo: 100 Days of Sodom. 

Oh, and another strange example is Antichrist starring Willem Dafoe (spelling?). It ends with Dafoe in the woods (without his genitals if my memory serves correctly) being swarmed by women that come from no where. And it's a great film. 

Anyways, I don't recommend watching any of those films to get what I'm saying, I'm just using them as references.


----------



## spartan928 (Jan 8, 2015)

Ever read Blood Meridian by McCarthy? Widely read with much critical acclaim. No tidy denouement and everyone is rather despicable, violent, ambiguous and unsettling. Yet I couldn't stop reading once I started. I guess there's many ways to pluck a chicken.


----------



## Sc0pe (Jan 8, 2015)

But where they the same characters they where at the start? Did the plot change them in any way?


----------

