Endings

[Thoughtbot360]

You know one thing has been one my mind a lot lately: sucky endings. I've actually researched a lot about writing and recently looked at an article where the writer(s) talked about how to make a good story for a console RPG Video games that was quite good, but I've come to a conclusion about what makes a good or bad ending. "The job of a good storyteller is to light a fire under the reader's feet and don't put it out until the end" (or so it is said) but a good ending will either do one of two or three things:

1) Tie up the loose ends (ideally the emotional baggage too, but some stories are just fundamentally not geared for that kind of coalescence at the end)
2) Not really put out the fire or resolve the conflict but having the Protagonist become so cool that the audience wants to be him, in spite of his problems (and gear them up for the sequel)
3) Creep the audience out in just the right way (this applies to thriller horror movies, because abject fear is what they paid to feel; or to ongoing stories that need to end on that note: like in the Empire Strikes back, Han Solo is still frozen and Luke is lying on the bed on the Millenium Falcon with a cold feeling in heart over Darth Vader being his father and a stump where his sword hand used to be.....)

Thoughts?

In other news, Two Worlds sounds awesome ---IF it truly can deliver on its promise of that level of open-endedness. Many have failed to deliver before (I'm looking at you, Fable.)

[Emperor Ing]

For sequels to occur, the ending has to be very open. But make sure you do not apply this to the ACTUAL ENDING, sopranos producers!

And theres something else I noticed.

Ending rule. All endings are considered poor by the majority of players.

[Aramil Liadon]

Yeah, like in The Wind Waker. I liked the ending, but it allegedly sucked.

I thought you were Magtok. But you weren't quite evil enough, so I went back to check.

[Castaras]

Tying up loose ends is needed in books.

I can't remember the name of the book, but there was a trilogy I read, and it was a brilliant set of books.

Kept me going right to the ending.

Which was where it was disappointing. There was perhaps, one of the many loose ends tied up, and all the others left loose. It was screaming for a fourth book that was(as far as I know) never made.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

I don't like overly happy endings. The books I've read that had the best endings, in my humble opinion, were Lord of the Rings and His Dark Materials.

[Mr. Moon]

Ah, Cassie, that reminds me of Inkspell.

It's a very good book. Great characters, unique concept, interesting plot.

Untill you get the end. The last sentance goes along the lines of "I'm sure there will be a happy ending." I'm not kidding.

This is what we anime junkies call the InuYasha syndrom. Even though technicly, IYS doesn't compleatly fit, because the symptoms of IYS is nothing happening over the entire serries. Things did happen in Inkheart and Inkspell. It just didn't end.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

Ah, Cassie, that reminds me of Inkspell.

It's a very good book. Great characters, unique concept, interesting plot.

Untill you get the end. The last sentance goes along the lines of "I'm sure there will be a happy ending." I'm not kidding.

This is what we anime junkies call the InuYasha syndrom. Even though technicly, IYS doesn't compleatly fit, because the symptoms of IYS is nothing happening over the entire serries. Things did happen in Inkheart and Inkspell. It just didn't end.

You do know it's part of an (unfinished) trilogy?

[Mr. Moon]

Is it?

Well, it would have been nice to know that when I set Inkspell down in disguist. Very nice, Funkie. You've earned a second chance. ^_^"

[Dragonrider]

Yeah, if anyone has word on the third book...I've heard that it'll be called both "Inkdawn" and "Inkdeath", I don't know which is right or if either of them are. But I've been craving it lately, whatever it's called.

the Prydain Chronicles also had a LotR-ish ending...the choice was somewhat different but it was bittersweet. Made me cry the first time I read it.

[Leather_Book_Wizard]

Is it?

Well, it would have been nice to know that when I set Inkspell down in disguist. Very nice, Funkie. You've earned a second chance. ^_^"

Doesn't it say it's a trilogy somewhere on the book?

@^ It's going to be called Inkdeath and Dustfinger is supposed to be returning.

[Mr. Moon]

Doesn't it say it's a trilogy somewhere on the book?

@^ It's going to be called Inkdeath and Dustfinger is supposed to be returning.

I don't think it did in my copy. I'll have to rent it from the library when I get back to school.

[Dragonrider]

Doesn't it say it's a trilogy somewhere on the book?

@^ It's going to be called Inkdeath and Dustfinger is supposed to be returning.

Yeah, that's what they set out to do anyway. It's been almost two years now since the book came out, she OUGHT to be about ready for the second one!

Man, I was obsessed with that book...I remember reading it like three times in a month, which is a lot for me; usually I can't read any one book more than once or twice a year because I get bored. I think the only other author who's persuaded me to do that is Diana Wynne Jones with Howl's Moving Castle....

@Moon_Called, have you read Inkheart? That comes BEFORE Inkspell, and I would think Spell would be pretty confusing if you hadn't read it.

[Mr. Moon]

Actually, I did. While it was still in Hardcover, I think. For a long time, it was my favorite, too. Frankly, if I hadn't, I don't think Inkspell would have made a lick of sense.

[Thoughtbot360]

This is what we anime junkies call the InuYasha syndrom.

*Snickers* Damn you, Inuyasha!

Even though technicly, IYS doesn't compleatly fit, because the symptoms of IYS is nothing happening over the entire serries. Things did happen in Inkheart and Inkspell. It just didn't end.

I know, for one thing Naraku just-won't-die! Well actually, he's died lots of times, thats the problem. He's like Kenny from South Park, only he actually has an excuse for reappearing in the next episode.

[Mr. Moon]

Hang on. I just realized. This thread is the perfect antidote to my problem. *Hugs Thought bot for creating this thread.*

So, I'm working on a story involving mine and SurlySerph's character, Marshel Nethren. I have the plot worked out, but I need some feed back, because I'm afraid I might end it with a hollow ending. Tell me what you think of it, pretty please.

Spoiler

Show

MC seeks the aide of the White Hammers in defeating a demon that is attacking her son's village. Marshel is sent, despite the fact that he'd rather eat his axe then travel with her. After a few days of travel, they arrive to find the village bing evacuated. The head of the council delivers some bad news as well. Mac's son, Maur, has been taken prisoner by Zamzish, the demon. Filled with rage, Marshel is only barely able to prevent MC from charging recklessly forth into the snake-demon's lair to punish him for this unforgivable crime. Once MC has calmed down enough to think rationally, they form a plan. As they enter the cave, they hear the voices of Tangive, goddess of Magic, and Helix, goddess of Death and Battle, and listen as Helix recruits Zamzish as his servant. While the grieving mother doesn't care, Marshel is loathe to interfere in the plans of Gods. Eventually, she manages to convince Marshel that Maur's very soul may be at risk. Grudgingly, the paladin agrees to a rescue mission. "But only a quick one." With some difficulty, the pair manage to rescue Maur. Just as they prepare to leave, Zamzish stops them. After a brief battle, MC and Marshel find themselves outmatched. They decided to ditch the 'cut' strategy, and adopt the time honored 'run' strategy. They only just manage to escape.

[Arameus]

The ending does not necessarily have to be very open-ended or even slightly so for a sequel to occur. Sometimes sequels will arise as a complete non sequitur owing to a property's popularity, or a property intentioned as a stand-alone will incorporate elements to make a sequel possible even if one is not planned from the outset. In the latter case, this often leads to trilogies. Beware unplanned trilogies.

Trilogies are good for authors and directors because of the 1, 2, 3 effect, wherein the first one is meant to be able to stand entirely on its own, whether or not a trilogy is planned. The second usually ends with a cliffhanger and cannot stand on its own, making it essentially only meant to be coupled with the third. The third, of course, is final and generally few if any loose ends are retained. The second and third movies congeal in this way to make a sort of supermovie that acts as the sequel to the stand-alone first.

A good example of this is Pirates of the Carribean, the first installment of which stood naturally on its own and was received very well. The sequel, however, was indeed a cliffhanger derived not from any natural continuation of the plot of the first, but rather formed from whatever they could form it from, with the main plot elements having little, if anything, to do with the plot of the first. The third movie provides the closure and continues the storyline set up (and left unfinished) in the second installment, hence they form the supermovie that complements the first.

The critical flaw with this all-too-popular manner of writing and filmmaking is that if the sequels are not thoroughly planned and integrated from the outset, you often end up with a good start and a mediocre, even poor, continuation, as in the Pirates scenario; the sequels failed to meet the high expectations set by the first movie due to the poor integration of the sequels, which were clearly afterthoughts.

What we gain from this is rather simple: it teaches us that if a good property is made to stand alone and unassisted, it should. Superman doesn't need a wisecracking sidekick because he's frickin' Superman. It wouldn't make sense and would only serve to detract from him. But if a property is intended to run through multiple installments from the outset, we can expect much more cohesion and a much better story exposition overall.

A good example of this is Star Wars because it does not one but both of these things. Star Wars: A New Hope was intended from the start as both a movie that would hold strongly on its own and serve as the base for a planned trilogy. The result of this is that the sequels lived fully up to the expectations set by the first and continued the story naturally and synergistically, resulting in a legendary property that has stood the test of time. But the three prequel movies, starting with Star Wars: The Phantom Menace take the other path. Although the events are already mentioned or at least alluded to in the original trilogy, the telling of these events in a cinematic medium were clearly an afterthought, and afterthought of nearly thirty years' separation from the original property. The result of this appendage is that three movies recognized by fans and critics alike as garbage are now in the canon of the legendary and highly-vaunted Star Wars property.

An ending is an important thing. A bad ending is not like a bad moment in the plot. A bad plot point can be overcome or made up for, but a bad ending can destroy even a great work. The so-called 'flawed' ending of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn resulted in much bad criticism, and is still recognized today as a point of contention amongst literary historians and lovers of great fiction. What's more, in a culture so dependent upon franchises and sequels, an ending (and what lies beyond it) can determine the legacy of a work; even an incredible property such as The Matrix or Final Fantasy VII can retroactively rendered garbage by improper implementation of sequels and related works.

What we learn from this is merely the obvious: Know well what you do before the first word is penned and stick firmly to it, and you won't be led astray and dashed upon the reefs by the allure of money or celebrity.

And that is what I did on my summer vacation.

[SurlySeraph]

A good example of this is Pirates of the Carribean, the first installment of which stood naturally on its own and was received very well. The sequel, however, was indeed a cliffhanger derived not from any natural continuation of the plot of the first, but rather formed from whatever they could form it from, with the main plot elements having little, if anything, to do with the plot of the first. The third movie provides the closure and continues the storyline set up (and left unfinished) in the second installment, hence they form the supermovie that complements the first.

The critical flaw with this all-too-popular manner of writing and filmmaking is that if the sequels are not thoroughly planned and integrated from the outset, you often end up with a good start and a mediocre, even poor, continuation, as in the Pirates scenario; the sequels failed to meet the high expectations set by the first movie due to the poor integration of the sequels, which were clearly afterthoughts.

Ayuh. I've heard that called Matrix Reloaded Syndrome - if you make a sequel with a third part in mind, both the sequel and the third part don't work well. But sequels tend to be profitable no matter how bad they are because fans want a sense of closure, so filmmakers keep making them.

[Thoughtbot360]

Hang on. I just realized. This thread is the perfect antidote to my problem. *Hugs Thought bot for creating this thread.*

Aw, Shucks.