REAL ending Explained (Director's commentary/comic explains it) - Krampus (2015) Discussion

[–] cgrill8 8 years ago

Didn't check the link, but there are three sides (yes 3) here at the boards... one group who believes they are in some sort of hell within Krampus's lair...

While the one group believe (me included) they survived and are being watched. And when I saw it initially in the theater, I was excited and in a wild sense of joy because I KNEW they survived without knowing or reading any comic or extra movie background book or Blu Ray/DVD commentary. I left the theater in an odd sense of happiness I'd never experienced from a theater movie... ever.

And there are people who think it could go 'either way'... and was left opened ended on purpose.

3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!

reply

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

when the director and the writers drop THREE different clues on what the ending is supposed to be and people still ignore that, then they are Choosing to ignore what the director intended.
they are choosing to follow their own ideas instead (And that is okay) but people that choose the dark ending need to understand that they are going against what the director intended. I see people insulting others for picking the "Happy ending" thats what the problem is.

reply

[–] cgrill8 8 years ago

And you'd be correct. That was happening here from about December 2015 to about May 2016... or well... you get the idea. It's IMDB... anything goes... just like the game message board on faqs that's been around for decades... :P

3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!

reply

[–] rye9969 8 years ago

From the reactions of all that survived, they all know what happened. Krampus is watching them.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

This is probably one of biggest mistakes a screenwriter can make. If you need an outside source to explain what happens then you fail as a writer. Majority of the people are probably not aware of a comic book tie-in, and a lot of people are not listening to the commentary. Movies are self-contained mediums. Which means the story needs to be explained in the movie or in subsequent sequels. To continue to point to outside materials as the definitive proof of an ending shows how poorly the movie was written. If the writers and directors intended the ending to not be as dark or as ambiguous as it is, then they should have done that within the film. To argue a point w/ materials that majority of people will not read or listen to is is illogical.

reply

[–] Wartle 8 years ago

This is probably one of biggest mistakes a screenwriter can make. If you need an outside source to explain what happens then you fail as a writer.

It's not a matter of the screenwriter failing to explain what happened. It's INTENTIONALLY open to interpretation. Being ambiguous is not inherently bad writing.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

Oh no that's not what I'm talking about, I'm referencing the arguments that people keep using to explain the ending (the commentary and comic book). If the screenwriter needed these components for people to understand the ending then it is bad writing. But I don't think that was the case w/ the movie and I think it was intentionally left ambiguous.

reply

[–] Wartle 8 years ago

alright, haha. In that case we agree. I apologize for having misinterpreted your point. 

reply

[–] marauteatime 8 years ago

It's not just the commentary and the comic.

The ONLY 'clues' for those that want an unhappy ending is the grandmother's obvious hatred for Krampus.
Trick 'R Treat didn't have a happy ending.
A 'glow' at the end (which any person with a brain would laugh at as a clue).
Snowglobes.

For those that know the ending is happy we have the following:

Actual knowledge of Krampus like Michael Dougherty had and used.
Interviews with Michael Dougherty about the movie.
Yes the comic with Dougherty used to expand on his Krampus universe to the point where one of the characters is the same mall Santa from the film.
Yes the commentary.
The behind the scenes art book.

All the bloody clues in the film.

All of what leads to a happy ending. This isn't a Chris Nolan movie. Something like this does not need every tiny little thing talked about and explained.

In my book there is not a single clue to a bad ending. In fact, I can easily debunk every theory and their so called clues. But the sad part is, people will only believe what they want, despite being shown time and again they are wrong.

To a point, one person on this board decided that the ending was bad and nothing would change his mind. He didn't even care if the director said it was a happy ending because the director would be wrong and he is right. Very egotistical.

No one on this board knows more about Dougherty's Krampus Universe than the man himself. If he says and explains things to show the ending is good, then it is good. If he put in a ton of clues (which he did) and people chose to ignore them, that is on them. Not on the writing.

That would be like saying you don't believe the guy was dead the entire time in The Six Sense and instead went to the hospital and was just being ignored by his wife, despite all the clues. Doesn't work that way.

Sorry that it turned into a rant, and no insulting intended, but yeah, my two cents.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

I didn't say the ending was bad, I think it was ambiguous. And if your only proof for a happy ending involved all the things you said, then I go back to my original statement then it's bad writing and direction. A good screenwriter and director would not need outside sources in order to fully tell the story. So if people think it's not a happy ending, then guess what it's an unhappy ending. No amount of arguing or pointing out "the commentary, the comic book, etc" will change that. Because like I said the majority of people aren't going to look or listen to those medias (only diehard fans will look further into the story and the movie). So the director can say all they want if it's not in the film then they did a poor job in telling the story.

Also, you mention the original Krampus legend, then I would argue which one?

The one where he punishes the children by beating them w/ birch sticks before tossing them in hell?
The one where he just steal the kid's presents?
The one that pre-dates Christianity and is rooted in paganism?

Only in modern times has the legend gotten more connected to Christmas and Christianity, as a sort of Anti-Claus.

The ending of the movie could be considered happy or unhappy depending on the person perspective. The kid got what he wanted, he wanted x-mas to be like it used to be, and that's exactly what he got (happy ending for him). However, that came at a cost by being trapped in the snowglobe, either a hell or purgatory (unhappy ending to the audience). This is how the movie shows it.

When it comes to movies the plot needs to be simple (not slow, linear, or child-like). People need to be able to follow the story and for it to be clear what is being told. If you look at all the great movies with twist endings they do a great exposition of what really happened throughout the movie. For example:

Six Sense, when he figures out he's dead you can easily go back and see all the points in the film that showed that he was dead the whole time.

Memento, the movie plays in chronological and in reverse, culminating, in the end, to show how the story started.

Fight Club, does a montage that explains that Tyler wasn't real.

If you look at movies that have ambiguous endings you aren't sure what happened due to how the story was told and how the ending played out. For example:

American Psycho, was it all in his head? Or was he really a serial killer?
Blade Runner, was Deckard a replicant?
Inception, was he still dreaming in the end?

These things are left to the audience to decide what happens. The writers can say all the want, the director can say all they want, but if they wanted everyone to believe the ending was "happy." then they wouldn't have left it so ambiguous. They could have easily found a way to show that the family wasn't stuck in a snow globe and that Krampus was just merely watching over them. How? By not using a *beep* snowglobe. Anyone who's seen a snowglobe knows that the scene within is a captured scene, never changing. Snowglobes have never been used as a "looking glasses" device, it's usually a mirror or a crystal ball, water, etc. If the audience were supposed to think that it's merely a monitoring device, then the director should have used a device that people would recognize.

So I go back to my original statement it's either bad writing and directing or the ending is ambiguous. The director and writers have little say in what happens after the movie releases, it is up to the audience to determine what the story is saying.

The fact that we're even having this discussion proves that the ending was ambiguous.

reply

[–] marauteatime 8 years ago

Also, you mention the original Krampus legend, then I would argue which one?

Only one I know of. Krampus goes to gets who are naughty and punishes them by whipping with his birch. And if they don't learn their lesson, he stuffs them in his bag, takes him to his lair and eats them.

When it comes to movies the plot needs to be simple (not slow, linear, or child-like).

Actually, not only is the plot simple, it is also slow, linear and child like because it is a fairy tale, just like the real Krampus.

People need to be able to follow the story and for it to be clear what is being told. If you look at all the great movies with twist endings they do a great exposition of what really happened throughout the movie.

People can follow the movie VERY well. Everyone I have met online and offline, besides the very few on IMDB who has seen the movie all say the same thing. It is not a bad ending. This movie also gives clues throughout the whole film.

They could have easily found a way to show that the family wasn't stuck in a snow globe and that Krampus was just merely watching over them.

They do.

The ending of the movie could be considered happy or unhappy depending on the person perspective.

That's exactly what someone who ignored all the clues would say. You seem to be just like them. Ignore all the clues and just try to look for ones that aren't there.

And also, VERY rarely has a snowglobe ever been used as a prison. It has been uses as a crystal ball (which can see anywhere and or anything you wish), a teleporter, a summoner.

Pretending that the snowglobe is a prison in this movie is like thinking the snowglobe from The Santa Clause is a prison because it has the house in it, shows people, and it pulls away from the snowglobe. Sound stupid? That is exactly what I think when people try to claim the family is stuck in the snow globe.

Next time, try looking for the real clues instead of just what you want to believe.

Oh and as for the interviews? I'm not gonna touch that, because what you said was beyond stupid.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

For the record I didn't say "bad" ending, I said unhappy those are 2 different things.

Next time, try looking for the real clues instead of just what you want to believe.

I could make the same argument.

People can follow the movie VERY well. Everyone I have met online and offline, besides the very few on IMDB who has seen the movie all say the same thing. It is not a bad ending. This movie also gives clues throughout the whole film.

It's called confirmation bias. If you take a look at many message boards (there's a 7-page thread just a few post down about the ending and so many other posts where people are questioning the ending) and videos you will get different results of what people think the ending is. All the people who keep saying it's a happy ending, are not providing proof within the movie that it is a happy ending. So what's happening is a lot of back and forth of what the ending is, that's what makes it ambiguous.

What are these clues that are throughout the movie that prove it's a happy ending?

Oh and as for the interviews? I'm not gonna touch that, because what you said was beyond stupid.

What are you talking about I didn't mention interviews? If you're referring to my comment about commentary then you have absolutely no idea what effective communication is. It's communications 101, to effectively tell a story all the elements must be within that story. So the fact that so many people are giving different endings it's either

A. A whole lot of people missed these "clues"
B. The clues weren't obvious enough for a lot of people to understand.
C. The director/screenwriters left it up to the viewer to determine what happened.

So if it's A or B, then it's bad writing and ineffective communication. If it's C then it's good writing and effective communication. I've seen a lot of different interpretations for it to be A or B. This is what I've been pointing out from the beginning that if the ending was so obvious then there wouldn't be any discussion about what the ending meant. Again this is what makes the ending ambiguous.

I also have to point out what others are ignoring, if this ending is happy then did the events actually occur or was it all a dream. The reason I bring this up is because people have forgotten the major snowstorm, the boyfriend's wrecked house, the dead delivery driver. There is nothing to indicate that Krampus reversed time or was even capable of it, so technically all that transpired over the last couple of days actually happened, didn't happen, or it was all a dream.

Although the alternative reality theory is starting to make more sense.

Either way, you look at the ending it can be happy or unhappy it depends on the perspective of the viewer. Now that I think about it, why are you so deadset and adamant that it's a happy ending? Why can't you let people interpret the movie how they want?

reply

[–] marauteatime 8 years ago

I could make the same argument.

Challenge accepted.

A version of A Christmas Carol is shown toward the beginning of the movie.

Various "spirits" torment the family because of their lack of Christmas Spirit.

The majority of the family acts like Scrooge while Max acts like George Baily from It's A Wonderful Life.

Krampus looks like a combination of the Ghost of Christmas Future and the Ghost Christmas Present.

The Angel toy looks the Ghost of Christmas Past since for some reason a lot of times, that ghost is represented by an angel.

The Grandma represents Jacob Marley. Even her story as a warning.

In Omi's story, Krampus winks at her.

The Jack in the Box that eats one of the sisters and is always smiling represents the Ghost of Christmas Present. Always jolly and plump.

Max being thrown into a firey pit after repenting then waking up is EXACTLY like two Christmas Carol movies, where that exact same thing happens to Scrooge. There is also the movie Scrooged where Bill Murray's character attends a cremation at the end and discovers that it is his own. He tries to stop it, but is teleported into the casket and it with him go into the fire. He begins to burn while he screams in pain and terror screaming repentance and wakes up in an elevator.

The movie ends with Santa Claus is Coming to Town. More specifically these lyrics: He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you are bad or good so be good for goodness sake.

The boyfriend and deliveryman are not in a snowglobe.

You can clearly see the neighborhood outside the house. You can't see the neighborhood in the snowglobe.

Too much of A Christmas Carol is in it for it to say they are just all in Hell or a snowglobe purgatory.

The movie acts like a dark fairy tale. Starts off mostly cheery, then goes into darkness before going back into the light.

The movie is clearly about redemption. It starts off with the family not getting along and finally learn what it means to be a family.

And what are your clues for the unhappy ending. These?

The bright light of Christmas Day.
A snowglobe shows up.

Omi having hatred towards Krampus.

All this and I didn't even add the interviews, commentary or comic.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

*sigh* I said the ending was ambiguous and pointed out how it can be perceived as unhappy, since some people want to argue that it's a happy ending.

So all your proof is based on outside sources, then my original statement stands that this is bad screenwriting/directing. You're basing your argument on a hypothetical that people watching the movie have seen the movies you're making the comparison to. Which then leads me back to my other point about the ending being ambiguous. If only for the proof you provided if a person didn't see the movies that you referenced then they will jump to their own conclusions about what happened.

That's not how you write a story or screenplay, and it fails at the basic rules of screenwriting.

reply

[–] marauteatime 8 years ago

Okay, you are obviously an idiot, a person who believes only what they want, and a waste of time. I am done with you. You obviously don't want to remove your head from your butt so I am done talking to you. Good day.

reply

[–] eddidit 8 years ago

What's with all the aggression? it's just a movie, frankly who cares what anyone thinks the movie ending means, believe what you want, and let others believe what they want… it's not that serious.

reply

[–] Chris12955 8 years ago

To continue to point to outside materials as the definitive proof of an ending shows how poorly the movie was written.

I watched the movie, then read the comic some WEEKS later. While I initially thought it was the bad ending, I came to the conclusion it was a "happy" ending based off of the film itself, and a couple of hours to stew over what I had JUST seen. The film has too many inconsistencies for the bad ending to be true. The "happy" ending is the only one that makes sense under any scrutiny.

reply

[–] TheMichael 8 years ago

I'd have to look at the graphic novel, because there's a difference between a happy ending and a "happy" ending. Same with this movie, Max got his happy ending that he wanted, but does that mean it's a reward? No, it doesn't. THAT'S HOW the ending is supposed to be seen as: not as something scary or painful but as something that will never grow, or learn, or end.

reply

[–] dezease 8 years ago

Do you mean that they will forever be in Max's happy Christmas like it used to be?

reply

[–] Chris12955 8 years ago

They all come back just the way they were if Krampus deemed them worthy. In the comic, we see what happens to those that are not deemed worthy. He turns those who cannot find love into his toys to serve him for future Christmases. They are not returned like everyone else. So there is a bad ending for some people, just not the Engels.

The Bell and snow globe are the interpretive part.
Is he always watching them, and will return if they mess up?
Or does he give them the bell because they passed his test, and he collects snow globes to watch those who prove to be the best of humanity so he can watch his good work.
I prefer the latter, as Krampus would be doing this because he wants to help others(in his own twisted way), and the snow globes give him a warm fuzzy feeling thinking of his good deeds.

reply

[–] RobsBottin 8 years ago

That's exactly how I interpreted the ending. The young boy showed immense bravery which Krampus acknowledged thus the family were saved from eternal hell.

It's all a deep end.

reply

[–] HelloMyNameIsMrBurns 8 years ago

That's meaningless.

reply

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

the writer/creator's words are meaningless

ok bud 

reply

[–] Chris12955 8 years ago

The person who made the video forgot something that proves the "happy" ending. Omi knew what happened to those Krampus took. She said she hid under her bed the whole time. How would she know where he took them then? How would she survive a frigid winter with everyone gone for miles and miles around. How could this strange occurrence not be part of the family history if she was the lone survivor of a mass disappearance? The only answer is that she ALSO passed Krampus' test, and lied to ensure Max committed the same act of love and bravery because he wanted to. Not because he would think it was the only way to bring them back since Omi said it, thus making it a meaningless gesture. Her knowing nod to Max supports this too.

Other evidence not mentioned in the video.
Krampus took everyone in a very extensive area, even the truly good people and the innocent babies if the bad ending is true. Why do that if you only want the bad people, and how will people ever learn if you kill them all?

Why did the helpers want to take people whole and unconscious(or near death) from what we see? He is supposedly just killing them, a severed limb shouldn't matter.

One little boy or girl shouldn't condemn or save a community. There must be more going on here. Max is just ONE person of interest in this visit, and not the reason for it.

Again, they took an innocent baby. What sin did that child commit?

I concluded it was the "happy" ending after I saw it in theaters, and thought about all that and some of the stuff the video mentioned(I read the comic AFTER coming to that conclusion.) All of those snow globes are the bigger success stories for Krampus. Ones he can look at with joy at his good work in helping others see the light. Of course, you don't want to be on Krampus' naughty list, because then he truly drags you to Hell as seen in the comic.

reply

[–] reaseltbim 8 years ago

excellent post.

you make really good points

reply