MovieChat Forums > My Sister's Keeper (2009) Discussion > A response to why they changed the endin...

A response to why they changed the ending.

posted 15 years ago by copingwithcows
26 replies | jump to latest

I loved this movie- and the book.

I lost a family member to cancer in 2008- Morgan was 16 years old, and suffered from a brain tumor(PNET). She did not get the chance that Kate did- living only 18 months from her diagnosis.

Morgan read the book before she lost the ability, but did not live long enough to see the film. Her family did sit down to see it.

The ending of the film is very different than the book and that may upset some people. But it was different in the best way.

The movie showed the absolute struggle and pain of a victim of cancer. Something no other form of media has ever been brave enough to do. Those last moments were so hard to watch, it was like losing Morgan all over again. But afterwords we were so grateful that they had changed the ending.

Most children who suffer from cancer don't get a miracle, they don't have a perfect match, they suffer, and they die, and most horribly they go unnoticed by an uncaring public. Who is doing almost nothing to save them.

The only people who are fighting for a cure to childhood cancers, are those who have seen what it does to our children, if this movies' ending brought that truth to one person, it was worth the change.

As far as the "freak accident" ending in the book, it really isn't a surprising or "twisted" ending- car accidents happen every day- the true surprise is that Kate lives. In reality a family would probably lose both daughters, and in reality no one would be the wiser. But that would be too devastating for a film, or a book.

[–] celebrateslife 15 years ago

I am sorry for your loss and I too know some people with cancer. However, I much rather prefer the movie parallels the book. Not verbatim, but I want the scenes to be pretty similar, if possible. I do agree with Anna that she does have a right to her body, though I think Jodi Picoult wanted Kate to live. I did too. At least she lives in the book and Anna lives in the movie.

[–] rosek102 15 years ago

To me, the fact that most cancer patients die without getting a "miracle" is the whole reason the book's ending worked so well. It went against what one might expect for a person in Kate's situation, and it portrayed a scenario that COULD happen, even though it might not be common. What unfolded in the book proved the author's entire point: that there are no easy answers in life, and sometimes things happen in reverse. There's a message in that, too.

[–] vintage_girl_89 15 years ago

Honestly I know people are upset with the ending being changed, i read about the ending for the book and i thought it was a good twist but then i read up more on the book and watched the movie and i have to say I don't see anything wrong with them changing it in the movie, while the books ending is a good twist, to me, it doesn't make sense considering kate made anna do all this because she wanted to die, because she was ready to die and for me it would feel like the whole thing about them going to court would be pointless. Also i find it really unfair for anna that for her whole life she gets used for her spare parts and then dies, it seems almost cruel.

-x-[vintage_girl_89]-x-
|
Family Guy Forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] rosek102 15 years ago

If you are a fan of Jodi Picoult, I strongly suggest that you listen to one of her interviews (there are some on youtube) where she addresses the ending to this particular book. She gets asked about it ALL the time, and when you hear her response, it really starts to make sense. She talks about how it was very difficult to write the last part of the book, and she toyed with all kinds of different scenarios to finish it off, but in the end, this was the only way that the Fitzgerald family could be shocked out of their pattern of self-destruction. Any other ending--really, ANY other ending--and they would have kept on making the same mistakes.

If Kate had died without getting the kidney transplant, Anna would have been in a position to blame herself the rest of her life, and the family would have gone on wondering what could have happened if they had done the transplant. If Kate died despite the transplant, the family might have lamented over how it may have been different if Anna had given up the kidney sooner. If Anna had agreed to the transplant and it saved Kate's life, Anna would have still essentially felt the need to be her sister's "keeper," and the parents would have most likely expected her to keep donating if Kate relapsed again. All three of those scenarios are common in that they present situations where the family still doesn't understand the bigger picture, and they are prone to spending the rest of their lives dealing with that self-destructive way of thinking. Anna dying was the very last thing they expected, because she was born to save her sister--literally--and she did, but it came at a tremendous personal cost to the family. It's devastating, but it was necessary to drill the truth into the remaining characters' heads.

Not only that, but also, according to Picoult, in stories like this, the one who brings on the war is the one who needs to eventually make the peace, and that's what Anna did, whether or not it was intentional on her part.

I am a HUGE fan of Jodi Picoult's, and I support her ending a thousand percent. I agree with her that it was the best way she could have concluded it, because really, when you think about it, many tragedies in life are the kind that only have a "one in a million" chance of happening. Car accidents. A cancer diagnosis. Chronic illness. Murder. All these things, and more, might seem rare to one person, but that's why they get to you - because you don't expect it to happen to you, or in your own family.

[–] failuretocommunica 15 years ago

If Kate had died without getting the kidney transplant, Anna would have been in a position to blame herself the rest of her life, and the family would have gone on wondering what could have happened if they had done the transplant. If Kate died despite the transplant, the family might have lamented over how it may have been different if Anna had given up the kidney sooner. If Anna had agreed to the transplant and it saved Kate's life, Anna would have still essentially felt the need to be her sister's "keeper," and the parents would have most likely expected her to keep donating if Kate relapsed again. All three of those scenarios....

....would have been easy to anticipate when she started writing the story. If Jodi didn't think she could write a satisfactory ending with Anna making a choice, then she shouldn't have written a 400-page story about Anna fighting for the right to make a choice.

[–] rosek102 15 years ago

If Jodi didn't think she could write a satisfactory ending with Anna making a choice, then she shouldn't have written a 400-page story about Anna fighting for the right to make a choice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So you're saying that Anna should have been able to make a choice in the end and have everything tied up in a neat little bow? As an author, it's important to write about the unexpected and add certain twists to the story. There's a reason she wrote about Anna fighting for that choice, and there's a reason it all turned out the way it did. It's called irony.

[–] belaspal 15 years ago

Personally, I don't like the book ending, because to me it signifies that everything would have been fine if Anna had just donated her kidney in the first place.

[–] Robyn536 13 years ago

Anna did make her choice; her choice was giving Kate her kidney. She wanted to from the beginning. It was Kate that told her not to more than once, after Anna caught Kate trying to work up the courage to commit suicide.

(Yes, I realize this is a very old thread but I wanted to point that out for any future readers.)

[–] MosquitoMagnet 10 years ago

I didn't read the book. Did they keep annas brain damaged body around in a hospital in case katie needs something again in the future?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] red_rackham_77 15 years ago

First, I am so sorry for your loss and my prayers are with you.

Now I feel bad for Kate because she is dying my most of my sympathy goes to Anna because she was made to be the family petri dish. Anything with Kate goes wrong go to Anna, never mind her pain or what she loses in the process of saving her sister. I think the mother didn't really care about Anna choices in giving anything to her sister.

[–] lavabass 14 years ago

thank you for sharing your story. my sympathies for what must have been a devastating loss for your family.

[–] Eowyn_89 14 years ago

a few months ago the doughter of my moms friend died...she also had a tumor and was I think 16 too...she suffered alot...I feel so sorry for you...desteny and life can be cruel sometimes to take away such young and onnocent lifes...

but for the endings...I liked the movie ending more...because I had the feeling at the end of the book, that Anna was really only there to save Kates life and than to vanish...its too cruel...sorry...its also sad, that in the movie Kate dies...but the whole disease is cruel :(

No, I´m not saying I´m sorry!- 30 Seconds to Mars 'Closer to the Edge'

[–] hurtmesogood 14 years ago

I prefer the movie ending. I think cinematically it works better, and in general it's just a better ending.

get to know me // http://becoolrelax.tumblr.com/

[–] moviefan411 13 years ago

I completely agree because I lost my 6 year old cousin to cancer last year. I think people need to realize that this is happening! Every day 46 kids are diagnosed with cancer, and 7 kids a day die. It;s horrible so I'm glad they showed that not everyone gets their happy ending.

[–] moviefan411 13 years ago

[–] Saetan 13 years ago

I definitely agree. A lot of peope dont know this, but in the original script for "Mrs. Doubtfire," Sally Field and Robin Williams' characters were supposed to get back together, but they both convinced Christopher Columbus, the director, to change it to what we know now, where they dont get back together, as it wouldnt give children of separated parents false hope.
In a way, that's the same concept that makes me agree with the movie ending here. Anna dying was a great twist for a book, but for movie-goers it might seem kinda cheap. I like that Kate dying was more realistic, that she did die and there was no miracle twist at the end. You still go on the emotional rollercoaster, but it never seems outlandish.

Lord Chiclet Meriwether Bosco Turlington, former Aryan

[–] oephellia 13 years ago

First, my sympathies to the family.

Second, I take issue with your statement about an 'uncaring public'. Most of us know somebody with cancer. My daughter had seveal friends in high school alone who had cancer. One entire family, sans one son, was wiped out by the disease. Another girl died at a young age (i.e., fourteen). One had cancer and did survive despite five tough years of really fighting.

People with cancer do not just 'stop breathing'. For the most part, they are unconscious by the time they die because of the pain killing drugs they are given.

What disturbed me most about the movie is the mother did not want to put her daughter into HOSPICE.

Kate lived in the book because she got the life saving kidney and miraculously lived, I believe a long life. It's call irony. And believe me, there is a lot of irony in this world we live in.

Cancer happens and it can happen to anyone of us at any time. Just because the people don't 'see' what it can do, doesn't mean they don't know of someone who has it.

I can tell you many more stories of people with cancer, very sad stories, mothers who have died after having babies they've longed for for years, but I won't. Breast Cancer that attacks families. Leukemia attacking small babies. And I don't even work in a hospital.

So people DO KNOW. People are NOT UNCARING.