MovieChat Forums > And Then There Were None (2015) Discussion > Why change Christie's original ending?

Why change Christie's original ending?

posted 9 years ago by SohoLondon
57 replies | jump to latest

Such a classic, classic book and an ingenious premise by one of the all-time great crime writers. So why change her ending?

The killer certainly never revealed themself on the island nor talked to anyone as they were hanging. The ending of the book was a lot more mysterious as the ten murders on an island with no killer wasn't actually solved. There was even another chapter set in Scotland Yard where they were baffled and reveal a detail about the hanging chair that is one of the greatest details in the book.

Only when a letter was sent much later, featuring a forensic confession, was the killer revealed.

So much ingenious detail of how the mystery was engineered was just wiped out in favour of ponderous slow-motion scenes. A real shame as such an clever book should be portrayed as such, instead of being filmed as if Christie had only put a tenth as much thought into the plot as she actually did.

[–] defereggen 9 years ago

They followed the ending from the BBC4 Radio play.

[–] garytheall 9 years ago

I have a different interpretation of the ending. When the judge picks up the gun, it is empty, but he has the one bullet he removed to make it appear that he was killed with the gun. When he walks into the room to commit suicide, he opens the chamber of the gun, AND THERE ARE FIVE BULLETS ALREADY IN IT. My interpretation of this ending is that the judge, knowing that he was dying of cancer, decided to commit suicide. As he was loading the gun, after inserting five bullets his mind wandered and he imagined the entire story of the ten little soldiers. At the conclusion of his fantasy, he loaded the last bullet and fired. How else can you explain the presence of the five bullets in the gun?

[–] sortatired 9 years ago

Those weren't bullets. They were the spent shells of the bullets Vera had fired. Pistols don't eject cartridges like rifles do.

[–] bookme120 9 years ago

Agreed. Most of the films over the past couple of decades based on Agatha Christie stories have been changed. Not just the endings, but the characters, and the plots. Very sad and disappointing. There's a reason her stories have been loved for so long, so changing them doesn't seem to make sense if the producers care at all about having a story that lasts. If they want to play with the story, it would be great if, bare minimum, they would acknowledge it in the title. That way, we're not as disappointed and Christie doesn't look bad from having a story that's not as great as the real thing.

[–] maggieameanderings 9 years ago

You must have hated the Poirot series then. They made a lot of changes.

[–] bjelkier 9 years ago

I have read every one of Agatha Christie's books and although I noticed changes in the Poirot and Marple adaptations, they were still good. I did enjoy this version of "And Then There Were None". I have watched the 1945 and 1966 versions with the happy ending. I was wondering where they were going with this one too. When Philip Lombard never admitted he was not Lombard, then I knew it was going to be the original ending. The two movies based on the play worked for there were subtle clues like different initials on the baggage where he explains that he "borrowed" them but that did not happen in this one. This movie was darker and it was enjoyable watching how they would deal with the story. My husband watched it with me and he never saw the original movies or read the book and it had him wondering who the killer was. He thought it was "Captain Flint" (from Black Sails) the doctor, where Toby Stephens did a great job playing the woose. So different from his characterization of Captain Flint or Dohrety in "13 Hours".

[–] BenignPillows 9 years ago

I couldn't agree more. I loved the book, Christie's best.

Then comes this drawn out, melodramatic mess, complete with thunderstorm (okay so the melodrama aspect may have come from Christie, but if you're going to modernize anything, change that!)

And the ending, where the judge explains the plot as Vera slowly suffocates, but not without being able to have a conversation with him! How much support could her body get from the edge of that chair, anyway??

Look, maybe I'm a wimp, but what I've always liked about Christie is the restoration of order. Someone sensible taking their time explaining everything after it's over (typically Poirot gathering the suspects in the library). Not focusing on the cruelty, but on the cleverness of the deception. This is the advantage detective stories have over real life, and Christie, who belonged to the older, less bloody tradition, always delivered.

I didn't want to get the explanation while someone is being tortured to death, and what's more, it wasn't needed. Voice over coupled with visual flashbacks would have worked just fine. Not "ponderous slow-motion" flashbacks of the past deeds, but of how the judge was able to trick us.

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

[–] maggieameanderings 9 years ago

Then comes this drawn out, melodramatic mess, complete with thunderstorm (okay so the melodrama aspect may have come from Christie, but if you're going to modernize anything, change that!)

The thunderstorm was in the book. It was a critical element in the book as it prevented them from signaling for help and later prevent help from arriving in time. It also meant that they couldn't leave the island.

If it weren't for the deadly surf from the thunderstorm, some of them were young and healthy. The island wasn't that far off shore. They'd have probably just grabbed something that would float and swam for it.

[–] BenignPillows 9 years ago

Thanks for the info, but to me that kind of just underlines that weakness of the novel - it was so unlikely that none of them would manage to get help or get ashore, that they had to resort to things like a thunderstorm. The judge couldn't have counted on that to happen either, so it was lucky for him.

Like I said, Christie herself can be quite melodramatic at times, I guess I hoped the adaptation would tone down those elements (instead of adding to it with the slow motion flashbacks, where sometimes the past crimes were made more dramatic).

This doesn't mean the book isn't a masterpiece, and it might be time to reread it :)

-----------------------
"The best fairytale is one where you believe the people" -Irvin Kershner

[–] mrx2117 9 years ago

If they had of done the whole letter/flashback voiceover thing it would have felt forced and pained because that's been done to death over the years. Instead they went for the pitch black version where the judge may just of succeeded in creating his great mystery. We know what happened but the people who arrive on the Island after the carnage don't. I always found the letter in the bottle bit a bit anticlimactic.

[–] dogstar-12 9 years ago

When I read this a few years ago, I started thinking about the adaptation they could make (I didn't know it had been done previously) and when I thought about the reveal I came up with pretty much the same idea they had in this.

I liked the fact that at least one of the victims (and according to the killer, the worst of them all) got to know who was doing this to them, why they were doing it, and that there was nothing they could do to stop it. It actually makes sense that a judge who insisted on watching condemned men hang would want to reveal himself at the very end. And, as previously mentioned, it's a lot more cinematic than someone simply finding the letter in a bottle months later. And the way Wargrave shot himself was a lot more realistic than the arrangement with lackey bands (I think) he had in the book. So overall, I was really happy with the ending.

[–] robert-cahill-685-808093 8 years ago

The most reasonable comment on this thread. Totally agree

[–] therefdotcom 9 years ago

to sum this thread up:

people complaining about changes that were made from the book and other people proving them wrong, because all those elements were actually in the friggin book.

[–] tabbbby 8 years ago

I enjoy the book, but to be fair the Scotland Yard and the letter at the end were my least favorite part of the book. I did not like being so detached from the characters and the island, and it even felt silly, like Christie had killed everyone that could explain what happen so she had to retort to SY to tell explain the plot. That's why I enjoyed how the changed the ending.

[–] potsi-1 8 years ago

I really didn't like how they changed some of the accused crimes (Blore beating up a gay man instead of falsely having someone hanged. Rogers suffocating the woman they worked for with a pillow instead of not giving her her medicine. Macarthur shooting someone instead of sending him on a death mission).

The whole point of those ten people is that they committed injustices/ murders but fell under a grey area where the law couldn't touch them. Also the less sinister they were, the sooner they died so as to be spared some of the insanity (but Rogers in this version has done something much worse than both Brent and Armstrong who died after him)

Also, obviously the original title is too dated and offensive to be used now but I think keeping the title to "Ten Little *somethings* " would've served the story better.

Two reasons:

1) The biggest twist of all isn't who the killer is but the fact that no one makes it. They changed the title into basically the biggest spoiler. The story is so much more effective when you think it's just a regular mystery and not a countdown from ten to zero. It's commentary on literature using violence as a hook. It all feels exciting and interesting (by killing off the most superficial, unlikable, shallow character first) and slowly but surely death becomes sickening and feels like torture. Instead of death being the inciting incident, it becomes pretty much every beat of the story.

2) Calling it "Ten little Natives" would've not removed the book from its commentary on race (which subtle but in my opinion definitely there). Of course Christie was a product of her time but I think in this book she's commenting on racism rather than just featuring it. The original poem basically presents the death of small black boys as something that tickles and entertains people. The little boys are described like little silly creatures who are simple-minded, animal-like and dispensable. Then the story applies that poem onto ten people who are all part of white British culture. Suddenly they are the ones who behave erratic and like animals and they are the ones whose lives are dispensable and part of someone else entertain.

More commentary on race can be seen when Lombard (who in the book stole food from an African tribe) justifies his actions by saying that they don't mind death as much as Europeans. Even Vera agrees at some point and says something like "they were just tribesmen"

[–] CharlesTheBold 8 years ago

More commentary on race can be seen when Lombard (who in the book stole food from an African tribe) justifies his actions by saying that they don't mind death as much as Europeans. Even Vera agrees at some point and says something like "they were just tribesmen"
===================
What's surprising in the book is that Brent, of all people, is the only one to object to the others' racism, saying that white and black people are "brothers".

[–] potsi-1 8 years ago

What's surprising in the book is that Brent, of all people, is the only one to object to the others' racism, saying that white and black people are "brothers".

Agreed. I think she probably was the one person who truly did what she felt was right. Just so happened that she was sometimes incredibly misguided in knowing what the right thing was.

[–] Jimmy-128 8 years ago

The killer certainly never revealed themself on the island nor talked to anyone as they were hanging.

Because one of the glaring weaknesses of the Russian-language version (which also uses the novel's ending) is the "Wargrave explains" scene. It's basically an extended monologue, and it doesn't work anywhere near as well as the scene here between Wargrave and Vera.