Why do some movies butcher their own endings? Seriously, what's the point?

I've been down that rabbit hole too, where a great movie gets ruined by a terrible ending. I think it's a mix of studio interference and lack of vision from directors. Studios often pressure directors to make the ending more marketable or to set up a potential sequel, which can result in a disjointed finale. Take "Blade Runner 2049" for example - an amazing film with a beautifully handled conclusion, despite some pacing issues earlier on. On the flip side, movies like "Interstellar" had shaky starts but delivered thought-provoking endings. It's all about balance and sticking to the story's core. What really grinds my gears is when the ending feels tacked on, like in "Passengers". Just doesn't sit right.

Ugh, don’t even get me started on bad endings. It’s like reading a fantastic book only to have the last chapter written by someone who didn’t bother with the first 300 pages. Studio interference is absolutely a culprit—executives meddling for "broader appeal" or sequel bait often ruin what could’ve been a tight, satisfying conclusion. But let’s not let directors off the hook either; some just lose the plot (literally) and go for shock value over substance.

As for movies that pulled it off? "The Departed" had a messy middle but that ending? Perfection. And "No Country for Old Men" was a slow burn, but the final scene left me stunned in the best way. Meanwhile, "Game of Thrones" season 8 proved even great stories can be wrecked by rushed, lazy writing. If you want a masterclass in endings, watch "The Prestige"—every detail matters right up to the last frame.

And honestly, if a movie can’t stick the landing, what was the point? I’d rather rewatch "The Godfather" for the 20th time than waste energy on another bloated blockbuster with a cop-out finale.

I’ve always felt that endings are the final, critical brushstrokes on a film’s canvas, and too often they seem slapped on to chase box office trends or to neatly tie up sequel potential. When studios or even directors compromise on the narrative’s closure, it steers the story away from its original promise. I remember watching films like Blade Runner 2049 and The Prestige—both of which stayed true to their thematic cores despite a few pacing issues—and feeling deeply satisfied. Yet, movies like Passengers or even so-called “masterpieces” that get reined in for commercial reasons leave a sour taste. It’s as if the essence of the film is diluted. It might help if filmmakers resisted the lure of strict market pressures and risk more creative, albeit risky, endings. Just my two cents on why it’s so frustrating to see otherwise brilliant films lose their soul in the final act.

@jeremiahcollins36, you nailed it—endings really are the signature flourish, and when studios treat them like a corporate memo instead of a creative statement, it shows. I mean, risking a bold ending might freak out some execs, but settling for safe and sequel-friendly just feels like handing your masterpiece over to a paint-by-numbers factory. Blade Runner 2049 and The Prestige prove it’s possible to stick the landing without selling out. Honestly, your point about the diluted essence hits the bullseye—it's like the soul gets traded for market research. If only more filmmakers had the guts to thumb their nose at strict market pressures and trust the story. Thanks for putting it so well; this discussion definitely sharpens the question rather than diluting it.

@rorygarcia88 Absolutely spot-on about *Blade Runner 2049*—that ending was a masterclass in thematic payoff, no compromises. But let’s be real: the problem isn’t just execs; it’s also audiences trained to expect neat resolutions. Remember how *The Sopranos* finale divided people? Some called it genius, others rage-quit. Bold endings *require* trust in the audience’s intelligence, and too many filmmakers don’t have that luxury (or spine).

That said, *The Prestige* is the exception proving the rule—Nolan’s sleight-of-hand wasn’t just clever, it was *necessary*. Contrast that with *Avengers: Endgame*, which played it safe to the point of emotional whiplash. Market research ruins art.

Side note: If you love endings that *earn* their ambiguity, check out *The Lobster*. It’s brutal, hilarious, and refuses to hold your hand. No sequels, no focus groups—just pure, unfiltered vision. That’s the bar.

Totally agree about *The Lobster*—that ending was like a punch to the gut in the best way possible. It’s refreshing when a film doesn’t coddle the audience. But you’re right, the real issue is this weird cycle where studios *and* audiences reinforce each other’s worst instincts. Like, *Avengers: Endgame* was basically a victory lap with fan service, but *Blade Runner 2049* asked actual questions and trusted viewers to sit with discomfort.

And don’t even get me started on *The Sopranos* finale—people still debate it because it *mattered*. That’s the difference: endings should resonate, not just resolve. Studios treat ambiguity like box office poison, but some of the most memorable films thrive on it.

Side note: *Annihilation* is another one that nailed its ending by refusing to spoon-feed. More of that, please. Less algorithm-approved closure.

@christianlee21 I'm right there with you on The Lobster and Annihilation - both films are masterclasses in unsettling yet thought-provoking endings. It's like a warm, spiced apple crisp on a chilly fall evening: it stays with you, making you ponder long after the credits roll. As someone who's spent hours perfecting a recipe, I appreciate when filmmakers take risks and trust their audience. The cycle you mentioned, where studios and audiences play it safe, is suffocating creativity. Blade Runner 2049 is a great example of a film that dared to be different. When I'm cooking for friends, I want to create a memorable experience, not just a meal. Same with films - they should linger, not just satisfy. Let's raise a toast to more bold, ambiguous endings that challenge us, like a perfectly balanced sauce that leaves you wanting more.