Wtf. I'm soooo pissed right now! The book ending was perfect. It was both a bad and a good ending and it was very satisfying. Why did they *beep* this up? Why create it to be a good ending and did they contain the virus? It ruins the amazing message the book sends out.
So yeah, I'm very pissed and can't believe Dan Brown signed off on this script.
Didn't know the book had a different ending. I'm usually against these kind of changes but I'm not sure the book ending would've worked better. My problem with it is it would make the whole movie pointless. Unsatisfactory.
shareI think that the most interesting aspect of the book is that it challenges the point of the traditional happy ending and challenges our values as a society.
While reading the book, there is a great tension between the idea that, fundamentally, Zobrist is right but releasing a plague is also not right. This is succinctly summed up by the opening line of the movie, "there is a switch, if you throw it half of the population will die, but if you don't, in 100 years the human race will be extinct." The great suspense is, how will Dan Brown resolve this unwinnable situation in a way that will be satisfying to readers? What should Langdon [and we as a species] do, when faced with such a choice?
The movie replaces an interesting, thought-provoking moral solution from the book's ending with a contrived stopping-the-bad-guy "happy" ending.
In a trite way, that might be emotionally satisfying to an audience but only if you don't think too much about it. We're supposed to be happy that Langdon stops the bad guys, gets his watch back, returns a museum artifact and sort of reconnects with an old flame, but this ignores the fact that Langdon, the WHO and the movie story-tellers chose option B, do nothing; which means that in 100 years the human race will have over-harvested and over-fished the land and seas of the Earth and reach a crisis point that will rival the painful misery of the Black Plague...
Just because the main character doesn't succeed at their intended goal established at the beginning of a story doesn't mean that the story has no point. American Beauty, House of Sand and Fog, Rocky, etc.
You should read the book, Brown comes up with some pretty decent story elements to justify Zobrist setting up this wild goose chase. It's not perfect, but works so much better than the movie because there's a larger point being made, not just paying off Langdon's efforts by having him "win" in the end. This was a no win scenario, and the filmmakers seem to hope that you forget that when they force feed you their ending.
Book ending would've been a lot better from a character standpoint. Felicity Jones' character would profit from much more complexity than just getting reduced to a toonish villain in the third act.
shareis easy, people who watch the movie, doesn´t read books, that´s why hollywood make movies for dumb audiences, have you watch terror movies lately? since like 10 years the terror movies are the same, some GoPro Camera, some screaming and voila, there´s a "new" terror franchise.
Same with the rest of the genres, this has a an end very predictible, "woman are crazy by loving man"
Do you actually mean terror or should that read horror?
shareMost scare movies are "terror"/splatterpunk nowadays, good horror seems to be a thing of the past.
At least if you define it thusly:
Horror is the sound in the dark, or that shadow that flicks past your moonlit window.
Terror is when you see what makes that sound or shadow.
Splatterpunk is what the thing does to you.
What's creepy is Dan Brown somehow knows what all we crazy geneticists are planning to unleash upon the world next year.
Only, we're wayyyyy to smart to leave random chance in control! We've targeted the stupid genes! Only those who have IQs below 120 will be sterilized!
MUWAH HA HA HA HA!!!
(Joins Dr. Doom, Dr. Evil, and Dr. Horrible in a boisterous round of evil laughter)
The whole franchise is dumb, starting from casting Hanks and ending with how they treated the only ending in he series that actually had a meaning to it.
shareI lost interest to read Dan Brown novels after Inferno - it has gone from thriller stuff(Da Vinci code, Angels & Demons..) to craziness or madness(Inferno). It makes me wanna fear what he might write next. In that sense, I like the positive end in the movie than what's in the book.
shareI totally share your frustration. Director completely destroyed 2 characters just to make this movie into a pop-corn Hollywood movie. by the way; imdb score is a simple proof how bad director messed it up!
Dr. Sienna Brooks's character was amazing, so fun to read and how she was build up and changed revealing her true self and her goal to "do good and help humanity"... Not some crazy psycho who will blow up stuff.
Total disappointment, seriously I wanted my money back right after I exit the cinema.
Oh god, I knew they would pussy out on the ending, I felt it in my gut. The book's ending had such a strong message, and it makes you look to Zobrist in a more sympathetic light. This could've been the filmmakers' chance in making a potentially three-dimensional antagonist for their film. But no, they HAD to make him a straight-up villain alongside Sienna. Great... *beep*
shareI watched the movie yesterday and I was so disappointed by the ending.
Not only is the book twist more interesting, but also Sienna is not a total villain, she wanted to stop Zobrist's creation. That is also much more interesting than her being some crazed fan, and it is disappointing they didn't mention this was not a plague but a sterilization virus.
But this is not the only thing that annoyed me.
I didn't like Sy's character at all, why couldn't they just have Farris as a character - why Bouchard had to be this typical bad guy who wants to sell the virus.
And one more thing: what is up with Provost? The head of Consortium was not this insane, killing around with a knife? He looks like he came out of Assassin's Creed games. He did not plan to kill Robert, Valenthya also planned to shot him with blanks.
At first I was very satisfied with the movie - the pace was great, not a dull moment, the actors were good etc. I actually enjoyed it a lot.. until the last 30 minutes or so when they messed it all up.
I am usually very forgiving when it comes to movie adaptations - I get that some things just have to be cut out so the movie doesn't drag on. But it annoys me when they change things for no good reason. And that is exactly what they did with Inferno.
Instead of making a romance thing between Langdon and Sinskey, they could have spent time in actually staying more true to the story.
I wonder how Dan Brown truly feels about all of this, I doubt he had much of a say in it even if he was an executive producer.
Yeah, I had a feeling they were going to "puss out" once they introduced the love story between Langdon and the Doctor; I could see they were going with a typical, cliche action movie storyline with the love story subplot, with the happy ending (of course Sienna would have to die and be punished for her involvement).
When they showed the virus bag still intact, and everyone have knife fights on the walkways, I could see which way they were heading. Very sad, since the book's ending was perfect.