So was the whole thing all a dream right from the beginning? When Max wakes up and sees his family, they act like nothing ever happened, and then Max tells everyone he just had a bad dream---then Max opens that present and sees that Krampus ornament, then the camera pans out to a snowglobe type display, then the monsters leap out and the movie ends----I don't get it! Can someone explain?
shareIt is left open to interpretation. You can look at it one of two ways.
A) The family all died, but because they had all learned their lesson, they were brought back to life Christmas morning. The family believes at first that the events were all a nightmare, until Max opens a gift containing a bell from Krampus that proves it had happened and a lesson was learned.
The snowglobes could also be looked at two ways in this. Either he has a globe of every home in the world and uses them to teleport. Or the snowglobes are trophies and every snowglobe represents a home that he had helped.
B) Everyone's dead and or trapped in the snowglobe for eternal punishment.
I personally go with A and the snowglobes are like trophies because the Official Comic Prequel shows what happens to those who don't/can't learn their lesson or are beyond help from Krampus.
In the comic, those "lost souls" dead or alive are put in sacks and taken to what I call a Junk Yard. The Junk Yard is filled with sacks of dead frozen bodies. Those dead bodies are then taken to the Toy Factory shich is only a few feet from the Junk Yard and are tossed into a gigantic vat (The Firey Pit from the movie) and are turned into the killer toys.
first i thought it was meant just like it was a dream.
which would be - hands down - an incredible stupid and lame ending.
just if a 10 year old is writing a text for school.
i hated the film for a moment because of that!
what comes after could have been, that the whole family had the same dream,
thats why they looked so frightened after they realized that.
after i left the cinema i thought more about it,
and now i think your theory B is the correct one.
there is one very important scene, which most people oversee.
we see the house and the camera is zooming out.
during this zooming the picture got blurred,
even for a quite long time.
its the moment the camera breaks through the glass wall of the snowglobe,
which means, both or all 3 things are real (the house, the globe and the room outside of the globe),
that all 3 things are on the same level/layer
and it proves that the snowglobe is not just Krampus' TV.
if the snowglobe is something like a TV, like a crystal ball of a witch,
also just 1 would have been enough.
so now i think, the house and the family are really captured inside of the snowglobe
There's evidence like that to support both theories, though. For instance, from the house you can see the rest of the neighborhood, but only their house is in the snow globe.
I don't think Krampus uses the snowglobes to teleport. He might use them to watch people to determine if they're "naughty or nice."
One thing people keep missing is after he wakes up there is an other worldly glow about everything... Rematch the ending you'll see it... I go with the purgatory/hell theory
Habataitara modorenai to itteshare
Mezashi-ta no wa aoi aoi ano sora
You mean a bright white glow? Haven't you ever seen snow or seen snow during the day time? Not really otherworldly though it could kinda look that way on camera. I know I once took a selfie and I had an otherworldly glow around me and bright white glow behind me.
Meaning, that there is no otherworldly glow. Max wakes up, looks outside, goes downstairs, light is coming from the windows, and nothing otherworldly about it.
No, no, he's not talking about the snow.
I noticed it as well, he talks about the subtle filter through the whole scene, even inside of the house.
Remember how some shows tend to portray flashbacks with some weird filter which makes things kind of blurry or fuzzy? The colors seem out of focus, everything seems brighter than usual etc. That's the best way I can explain it.
You mean like in any version of A Christmas Carol, The Santa Clause, It's A Wonderful Life, The Grinch?
Because the movie was heavily inspired by A Christmas Carol.
This movie didn't have such a filter through the whole movie though, only in that scene, it was used to show that something was off.
shareYou forget the big things though. Clues through interviews, the movie and the official prequel comic.
Interviews
In his newest feature, Krampus, Dougherty, along with his co-writers Todd Casey and Zach Shields, explore the mythology of the dark companion of Saint Nicholas with a mischievous sense of humor, and surprisingly, a ton of heart.
As Dougherty points out, to him, Christmas movies exist in their own little snow globe, wherein a clashing family, no matter how sick of each other, always manages to overcome their differences and live happily ever after. When it came to their interpretation, however, the family members in their screenplay aren’t so lucky. “What if the family’s issues escalated, and then they sort of allow Krampus to seep into their reality? So, it really started as a Christmas family dramedy that gets invaded by a horror movie, or a dark fairy tale”.
“I knew there was going to be a bit of an uproar, but you know, I love Christmas, too. It’s a pro-Christmas film, but in order to get that point across, it sort of takes you through a waking nightmare” says Dougherty
“One of my biggest inspirations was A Christmas Carol, which is a ghost story, and a really scary nightmare if you think about it. It takes you through this nightmare in order to just reaffirm the true meaning of the holiday, and we really wanted to do something similar”.
“Same thing with It’s a Wonderful Life. I mean, that guy is suicidal, about to jump off a bridge, and in comes this supernatural entity that says, ‘Well, reconsider that idea, because I’m going to take you through a version of the universe where you don’t exist, and it’s going to be a nightmare’, and that’s what gets him to cherish life again. So, there’s a long history of using Christmas stories to scare people straight”.
Frightful as it may be to younger patrons, Krampus‘ purpose doesn’t only lie in scaring kids into behaving. One motif that is mentioned often in the film is the idea of sacrifice. It’s easy to get distracted by the horror aspect of the feature, but Dougherty wants to make it clear that his movie is as much about spreading Christmas cheer as it is about terrifying small children.
Dougherty is going with, that Krampus is “judge, jury and executioner” but also the “shadow” of Santa.
Just don’t call him evil, the director says. “He’s more complex and nuanced than that.”
“He’s not Freddy (A Nightmare on Elm Street) or Jason (Friday the 13th) or Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this unstoppable monster that kicks down your door and rampages and grabs you,” he says. “If you study the myth, there’s something darkly playful about him. He’s having a good time doing what he does and he enjoys the cat-and-mouse aspect of it.”
The comic
Has a Christmas Carol feel in it.
It shows that the one who summons Krampus gets the bell.
We clearly see what happens to those that are beyond help.
Everyone Krampus and his minions encounter (Like the summoners and some side characters) learns a lesson and has turned for the better.
We see that those who were killed, but also learned their lesson wake up Christmas morning and are shown to truly have changed. Even going around the town/city.
The Movie
Again, Christmas Carol shows up, this time in form of a movie.
The family clearly changes for the better throughout the movie.
Babies are innocent, so Krampus would not have just up and put it into purgatory.
Max clearly sees the neighborhood out his window and lights on houses, yet when the camera zooms out and shows a snowglobe, you see no other houses but that one house. No vehicles, no nothing other than the house. The complete opposite Max sees out his window.
The Krampus bell is left to remind them of the horrific events that happened, but also to remind them of a time that their family was closest and to keep that up.
Putting all this stuff together, which ties beautifully together by the way, you get a better understanding of the ending.
No purgatory, no ironic punishment. They died, they learned their lesson, they were given a second chance along with a reminder that Krampus truly did visit them.
Plus I can't see the dog getting punished :/ It's a dog.
Trust no one.share
Animals have no souls and babies are pure of heart. So neither would be trapped in a snowglobe purgatory. This universe has a Santa and if Krampus kept the baby's soul, Santa would confront Krampus, or, Krampus would just never be able to have it. And since animals have no soul, the dog wouldn't show up in the snowglobe either if it was a prison.
shareCatholics believe in dog souls, they have the Pope, Dogs have souls
Trust no one.share
Huh. Learn something new every day. Well, then yes, a dog and baby wouldn't be punished.
sharehttp://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/graphics/dogs.jpg
Trust no one.share
Reading that made my day. Thanks for that.
shareHow did you decide babies can't go to purgatory? Babies are born with "original sin."
"Augustine contended that unbaptized children who die are condemned to hell, though they do not suffer all its pains because they are not guilty of personal sin.
Later theologians, in the Middle Ages, posited the existence of limbo as a way to soften the harshness of St. Augustine’s position. Unlike the state of quasi-hell posited by St. Augustine, these theologians defined limbo as a quasi-heaven, a place or state of where unbaptized persons enjoy a natural state of happiness yet remain excluded from the Beatific Vision" - http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/do-unbaptized-babies-go-to-limbo/
So if this is the mythology used in this Christmas story, than that baby is in the snow globe purgatory/limbo doomed to spend eternity on Christmas morning with this family. His sin was inherited, and that earns him this place in limbo.
Christians don't believe dogs have souls, so who cares about the dog? It's property just like the coffee table in the house.
All christian themed stories have this disturbing idea of hell and eternal punishment. No need to pretend this christian god or Santa counterpart would never let eternal punishment happen. There are no second chances for the eternally damned. This baby was meant to be punished, thus carrying out god's plan... his mysteriously evil plan.
wait, so I can take my "property"(the dog) to the afterlife with me? Party at my house in the afterlife then.
The logical interpretation would be they learned their lesson/ extra chance, especially after reading the comments on here
You're all overthinking this. Make of it what you want, but don't be looking for "the truth", because there isn't one.
I liked the movie a lot. Great writing, acting, production.
after i left the cinema i thought more about it,
and now i think your theory B is the correct one.
there is one very important scene, which most people oversee.
we see the house and the camera is zooming out.
during this zooming the picture got blurred,
even for a quite long time.
its the moment the camera breaks through the glass wall of the snowglobe,
which means, both or all 3 things are real (the house, the globe and the room outside of the globe),
that all 3 things are on the same level/layer
and it proves that the snowglobe is not just Krampus' TV.
I like your first explanation a lot, though I certainly felt B was true. I'll have to consider your take deeply though. :O
shareI like to think its A too.
Lose the Game!!!!!!!
I just want to point out - both your theories state "everyone's dead".
There is not a single death scene in the entire movie. We never see ANY character actually die.
The boy that doesn't talk being eaten- I would say that his death is implied :)
share> The boy that doesn't talk being eaten- I would say that his death is implied :)
Well, all the deaths were implied. Each one happened off screen. And the boy that didn't talk wasn't eaten, he was sucked up the chimney to an uncertain fate. The girl named Jordan was "eaten" by the jack-in-the-box, but she may still be alive inside of it.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
The boy didn't talk even when he wasn't being eaten, I see no correlation between the two.
I'll pump her full of motley seed, until she pops out a little me! -Shagwell
Huh? He was eaten... the dark elves pulled him up through the chimney. I imagined they put all the family members as they knocked them out (or putting that slime over their face) which made them more sleepy than anything... Stevie seemed completely fine when they wiped her face off)) into the back of the Krampus sleigh. I mean we saw the Der Klown (Jack in the Box) poking out from the back in that quick scene. And it had to be one of the 2 jack-in-the boxes with one of the girls in it. I was hoping to see a scene with them all roped up or bickering at each other in the back of the sleigh actually. With the dad, mom and aunt all with a bite out of their left or right legs... but not dead. We only get that impression from Max when he asks his dad if they are all 'going to die'. And another sad thing is... the grandmother did not understand the whole Krampus legend as the Director laid out. She knew nothing of his world per se. Only why he shows up, and who he takes. She knew nothing about how be redeemed, or getting her parents back.
3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!
you could not be more wrong if you tried, lol. They all suddenly remembered the events of the night before and how it was almost lost- not just the little boy. The lesson was learned but remember "he sees you when you're sleeping, knows when you are awake...", in other words, he is keeping an eye on them in case they forget the lesson and dire warning given about the loss of Christmas Spirit.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You're all overthinking this. Make of it what you want, but don't be looking for "the truth", because there isn't one.
I liked the movie a lot. Great writing, acting, production.
The ending is pretty clear the family is trapped in Krampus'es Snow globe. Krampus collects the naughty to live in purgatory in this case the purgatory of ironic punishment.
shareActually the ending is NOT "pretty clear". The reason I say that is because of the Official Prequel comic. In that, three people in different parts of a city or town are tormented by Krampus and die, just like in the movie. At the end, they are alive with a bell and even run across each other. They can't do that if only a small section is trapped in a snowglobe.
shareLol at comics having bearing on the film. The film is very clear and if you don't understand you misunderstood what Krampus actually does.
Considering Michael Dougherty had a lot to do with the comic and that it is an official tie-in, it's more haha at you for not understanding his world. He even said in interview Krampus is not necessarily evil, more darkly mischievous.
shareThey are most likely only meant to familiarize people with the character who know nothing of Krampus. The movie is self contained watching just the movie you know Krampus is not evil he is a character meant to punish the wicked or naughty. He torments more than anything and delivers this ironic punishment of being forced to have a happy Christmas over and over.
shareThe fact that it's an official comic book tie-in and had a lot of input from Dougherty himself would indicate that it is in fact canonical to the film. Thus, it is perfectly viable in discussions when discussing the Krampus/Trick-r-Treat universe.
shareSorry no. Not a movie doesn't count.
shareThe strength of your argument is astounding. Show me an interview where it is said that the comic is irrelevant. The comic was written by Dougherty, Shields, and Casey, the three writers of the movie itself, so it only makes sense that they would keep the mythology and the rules of how Krampus works the same in both the movie and the book. I would say that if the people who created and wrote the movie wrote the book, it's probably going to be canonical. The introduction to the comic book (written by Dougherty himself) says "His mythology and history was too big and too rich to be contained to one movie...", meaning that the comic expands upon the mythology already present in the movie, something that the back cover also states.
sharedude-youre posting the same annoying viewpoint on every thread! When a movie comes out, it belongs to EVERYONE. The ending is indeed open to many interpretations-there is no one right ending. That's silly.
shareYou're sitting here talking about this crap like you KNOW for a fact what is and isn't. It's hysterical. Please tell me that you're not an adult yet.
It's a supernatural/fantasy film. Saying what is "real" and what isn't is dumb.
you are so stupid lol...
the creator of the movie literally worked on the comic.. .so you are saying you know more of this project than the actual writer? lol thats so stupid
the director's commentary literally says that this is meant tobe like Christmas Carol... boy you are dumb
so you think he has to be evil to force a family to have a merry Christmas morning forever? seems mischievous to me. Seems like the punishment fits the crime, and Krampus does not have to be evil to do his job. That's like saying what happened to Bill Murray in Groundhog's Day is evil or firing an employee for stealing is evil.
And even if the creator has a lot to do with the movie doesn't mean the story/universe has to be the same. Whole characters were written out of The Hunger Games movie with the original novel's writer being involved. Plot lines were totally warped from the Walking Dead comics when it was made into a tv series.
Some things change in adaptions, and I can't even think of one movie that completely true to it's source material. Just look at how Alice's Adventures in Wonderland has been adapted! Only 2 out of the approx 50 versions in film and tv even are called by the full title, let alone how much the story has been warped in other ways.
"As the grandma in the trailer describes him, “he is the shadow of Saint Nicholas.” But he’s not evil per se. “He’s more complex and nuanced than that,” said Dougherty. “If you study the myth, there’s something darkly playful about him. He’s having a good time doing what he does and he enjoys the cat-and-mouse aspect of it.”
"He’s not Freddy (A Nightmare on Elm Street) or Jason (Friday the 13th) or Leatherface (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre), this unstoppable monster that kicks down your door and rampages and grabs you. If you study the myth, there’s something darkly playful about him. He’s having a good time doing what he does and he enjoys the cat-and-mouse aspect of it."
And he even cites two well known Christmas movies that inspired his story.
"A Christmas Carol and It’s A Wonderful Life are kind of nightmares that show you these broken characters who experience a darker side of divine intervention. They need to be scared straight. So it was important to elevate it. If you do a horror film without an emotional core, you don’t really have much."
The voice-overs should also be taken into context with what is seen on screen. It was emphasized Krampus punishes and is a malevolent force...then the look of dread on their faces (especially Max) adds to the equation. The entire scene gave me the "it's not over" impression.
What if Max and his family truly are caught in limbo? What if the Christmas Max is experiencing in the end is more like a mirage? It was exactly what he had hoped for in the beginning. Maybe unwrapping the bell was his realization it's all fake, that he'll never escape Krampus.
http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3371836/interview-krampus-director-michael-dougherty/
Considering what he says here and what the prequel comic says (which he was a part of) it is highly unlikely the family is in Hell, Purgatory or even the snowglobe.
If Dougherty were truly going for that kind of ending, why would he leave it purposely ambiguous? It seems odd a director would employ a rather open-ended final scene then inject his own interpretation of it.
shareIt's pretty common for a film to be left open to interpretation so that the audience can choose the ending that they prefer. Because there's a lot of people who love 90% of the film but then would hate it if Ending A happened and a similar group who would hate it if Ending B happened and etc.
I was hoping they would end it with Krampus throwing the kid into the pit of Hell and then just roll the credits from there. But that might have earned the film an R rating.
One clue that I haven't seen anyone mention yet (granted, I just started cruising the board 2 minutes ago), is the clear foreshadowing in the first real scene of the movie. They're watching A Christmas Carol. Which, as we all know, is a story where someone is haunted by disturbing visions on Christmas Eve, only to discover it was a dream the next morning and that he still had time to repent. That seems to be the theme of Krampus as well, which would run contrary to the idea that the family is in purgatory or Hell. That doesn't prove it definitively, just something to think of.
The only reason I personally would consider they might be in purgatory/Hell is because IMHO the kid didn't say the right things before Krampus threw him into the pit. He kept appealing to Krampus in different ways and Krampus wasn't buying it. Finally he says "I'm sorry... I just wanted Christmas to be the way it used to be." Sounds to me like the kid missed the point, and that he wasn't genuinely repenting. Wanting Christmas to be happy wasn't the sin he committed to summon Krampus in the first place, so why would apologizing for that save him? He should have apologized for giving up on goodness and Christmas and his family.
All in all I'm fine with all the different interpretations of the ending. I'd probably err on the side of them being in a Twilight Zone-y ironic Hell though since the Grandma said she was left behind and the rest of her family was taken. And it seems like the kid was left behind as well, until he went looking for Krampus and confronted him. So if he hadn't done that, it probably would have ended for him the same way it ended for Grandma previously.
---
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame.
a comic book has no bearing on a movie-they are separate mediums
shareInteresting thought and I'd be inclined to agree if the director didn't say the comic prequel had no bearing on this film and was two separate mediums. The director clearly states that the comic was made to expand on the mythology and history of their Krampus and that one movie could not hold it all.
I have seen a similar incident with The Dark Knight Rises and got the same reaction that you gave. When Marion Cotillard was cast I called out she would be playing Talia, based on the only information I had at the time which was just the Batman Begins novel where it talks about Ra's writing a letter to her. Of course as time went on I got more info and was correct and it all started with a book people thought had no bearing and was just another medium to expand the movie novel.
Yes, it's pretty clear and anyone who wants the ending to be "OPEN" just doesn't want to believe the obvious. When the director pans the camera around and shows you all the snow globes, he's telling every viewer that this is REALLY WHAT HAPPENED. There is no Inception trickery going on in those final screen shots.
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs. - Dr. Manhattan
You obviously never read any of the interviews or the comic. You want to say it's not open ended? Okay. Then I am right. Because when you take the interviews and the comic which he was behind on, then they are alive and well, but know the events really happened and the snowglobe collection is a collection of all the people Krampus had helped over the century.
shareThey are alive and well in the Snow globe where they are doomed to purgatory of a joyous Christmas. They have been taken by Krampus which is what Krampus does if you know the folklore of Krampus and pay attention to the Grandma's story in the movie. The problem is you are being confused by things that exist outside the movie. The interviews really are irrelevant as are the comic books. What is relevant is what happens on screen which is very clear.
Grandma who did not go with Krampus lives her life knowing her family was talen to purgatory.
Max who goes with Krampus joins his family in purgatory.
If this was a Christmas Carol style dream then grandma's family would have been returned lesson learned. They weren't they are living in one of the other Snow Globes and Grandma grew up alone and guilty for calling Krampus.
The Grandma's parents did not learn their lesson or were beyond help. Not everyone who Krampus visits is saved. The comic shows this by showing what happens to those "Lost People".
Also, read this. Very informative.
http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3371836/interview-krampus-director-michael-dougherty/
Omi's family didn't learn their lessons, which is why they weren't returned. They never learned to work together and didn't even seem to put up any sort of a fight, meaning it wouldn't have been difficult for Krampus's helpers to get them. Not everyone Krampus visits is returned; only the people who can band together and fight to survive.
shareYour entire argument is blasted to pieces with one simple fact. A baby was taken, there's no reason for a newborn child to be placed in purgatory as the child is innocent and has nothing to learn. The family was given a second chance with the bell as a reminder. The snowglobes are representative of those Krampus has "helped".
shareYour entire argument is blasted to pieces for the simple fact that those "rules" don't exist within the confines of this movie. All that is explained is that when all hope is lost Krampus shows up to take an entire family to the underworld...a baby is no exception.
You're entire argument is based solely on your imagination, not what this movie stated. The grandma explained what Krampus was and what he did, it showed him dumping them all into the underworld, and it showed them all trapped and tormented in his snowglobe cellar.
You're basing your argument on what constitutes entry to purgatory...like there is any set of rules regarding that anyway. It's complete nonsense. The movie plainly said what happened and that's what happened, stop making up your own BS to justify what you want to have happened.
Are you dense? There's a comic that ties to the film saying exactly what really happened. Which is plain and simple they are returned. So your entire opinion and basis for argument is rendered moot regardless. Making up what I want to have happen? What are you stoned? It's a movie, and I could hardly care enough one way or the other. Facts are facts, and you're wrong. Feel free to deal with it.
sharehow can anyone be this stupid?
shareMy first impression was that they all "learned their lesson" and when the camera zoomed out it showed how he watches people, similar to how Santa watches people.
shareSo, in your view then, he only watches those people who he's previously terrorized then, or else there would've been a lot more snow globes, but your take is interesting, nonetheless.
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs. - Dr. Manhattan
***SPOILERS***
1. No, it was not a dream.
2. Everything that happened in the movie happened, which is why THEY ALL remembered what had happened after Max opened his gift.
3. They are all trapped in the snow globe.
4. Max would not be in the snow globe had he not refused Krampus' pardon. He would've been able to continue his life just like his Grandmother had after she summoned Krampus.
People can believe it was just a dream or that there was really a happy ending if they want to, but they're just doing it because they want to. It's pretty clear that they are all trapped in that snow globe, which is why the camera made sure to show you all the other snow globes.
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs. - Dr. Manhattan
I feel, contextually, the snow globe prison idea doesn't really hold up. Max and Grandma's situations are different; Grandma lost the Christmas spirit and Max regained his, demonstrating it through his self-sacrifice, and as a result, gained his family back. He learned his lesson, Grandma didn't.
Furthermore, snow globes are commonly used as a tool for divination in Christmas lore. Krampus could simply be functioning like some kind of supernatural holiday parole officer.
And what would be the point of giving Max the ornament if he was damned to an eternity spent in a snow globe? Wasn't it supposed to function like a warning for he/she who invoked Krampus? What's the point in warning someone who's believed to beyond salvation and being punished for an eternity?
I think the ending is sinister even if they're not trapped in a snow globe. Max and the family thought the whole film was a dream, and when Max discovers the Krampus ornament, they all realize it wasn't and the film then zooms out to show that Krampus is monitoring them to make sure they don't make the same mistake.
Exactly. All that even ties in with interviews and the comic and even a lot of clues from the movie.
shareNo. You can't based the ending interpretation on having to have read the comics. That would defeat the entire movie for 99.9% of the people seeing it.
shareThe comics EXPAND the movie universe, the interviews EXPLAIN the movie. Add both those together, plus all the clues (not the "two" people think are clues) and it explains the movie and shows there is no twist ending.
shareDude, SHUT THE F--K UP about the goddamn comic! What the f--k is the matter with you? Why can't you understand a basic concept?
The VAST majority of the audience will not ever read the f--king comic or know it exists. A movie shouldn't need a comic book to fill in any blanks. You can't cite obscure tie-ins as a way to explain anything in-movie.
The movie stands on it's own terms. It is up to the AUDIENCE to DECIDE what HAPPENED. That's the point.
This.
I'm baffled that someone would continue to repeat himself over and over to prove his point. B-B-BUT THE COMIC! THE COMIC, GUYS! COME ON GUYS! THE COMIC!
Jfc.
LOL
Plus after reading the article cited as proof that they are not stuck in purgatory, I'm more convinced.
"Dougherty wants to make it clear that his movie is as much about spreading Christmas cheer as it is about terrifying small children. “[...]the holidays are really about are slowing down, turning off your phones, and spending time with people that you love, whether it’s your family, your friends, what have you, and just thinking about other people, for once, and that, in and of itself, especially today, is a sacrifice”."
"As Dougherty points out, to him, Christmas movies exist in their own little snow globe, wherein a clashing family, no matter how sick of each other, always manages to overcome their differences and live happily ever after. When it came to their interpretation, however, the family members in their screenplay aren’t so lucky."
- http://bloody-disgusting.com/interviews/3371836/interview-krampus-director-michael-dougherty/
See, they aren't so lucky because they are truly stuck in a snowglobe. They don't get a real happy ending, they get this forced falsely happy ending
So now this family is forced to focus on each other on Christmas day... forever.
You and everyone who thinks the movie has the dark ending are going to feel like complete idiots when the movie comes out in April. But then again, idiots who choose to ignore facts and instead come up with their own ending will never except the facts. Even when the director and the other two writers tell the truth. Instead they will whine like little kids because it is not the ending they thought it was and then they will go from "The movie was good. Especially that ending." to "Omfg, they are such hacks. It would make a lot more sense if they used the dark ending. What a *beep* joke." I can see it now. Actually I already have. One person here has already stated that if they reveal that the movie's ending was a good ending in the commentary, they will completely ignore it because somehow they know more about the movie's universe than the people who made it.
I also don't use JUST the comics. I use the interviews and the movies clues. You people are a joke for ignoring everything. Ignoring all the clues in this movie and saying "No! I'M the one who is right, I will attack anyone who says otherwise."is like ignoring all the clues in the movie The Sixth Sense, then turning around after the movie ends and claim that the wife was the ghost all along, despite the movie being obvious and showing what really happens.
You and everyone who thinks the movie has the dark ending are going to feel like complete idiots when the movie comes out in April. But then again, idiots who choose to ignore facts and instead come up with their own ending will never except the facts. Even when the director and the other two writers tell the truth. Instead they will whine like little kids because it is not the ending they thought it was and then they will go from "The movie was good. Especially that ending." to "Omfg, they are such hacks. It would make a lot more sense if they used the dark ending. What a *beep* joke." I can see it now. Actually I already have. One person here has already stated that if they reveal that the movie's ending was a good ending in the commentary, they will completely ignore it because somehow they know more about the movie's universe than the people who made it.
I also don't use JUST the comics. I use the interviews and the movies clues. You people are a joke for ignoring everything. Ignoring all the clues in this movie and saying "No! I'M the one who is right, I will attack anyone who says otherwise."is like ignoring all the clues in the movie The Sixth Sense, then turning around after the movie ends and claim that the wife was the ghost all along, despite the movie being obvious and showing what really happens
if they are stuck in a snowglobe why do they show the street in the window when the boy wakes up?
How the hell does that make sense?
Seeing as how every interview not included on the disc special features would ALSO take the viewer going beyond "just the movie", your point is pretty faulty.
It's fine that you believe movies to be self-sustaining. But the rest of the world - including filmmakers - doesn't necessarily agree with you.
Yeah I too think the "correct" one is the fact that it really did happen and they're all living in eternal punishment.
Why would they be all remembering what happened if that wasn't the "correct" one?
I will plant a f--king palm tree in your neck and f--k you f--king gently in its shade!
I thought it was quite clear, Max wanted a traditional Christmas and he got it, but with an ironic twist. Everyone is happy, they enjoy each other's company, everything is a little too cheerful. They'll repeat that Christmas forever trapped in the snow globe, that's the irony of it.
shareYou read the interviews, you read the comic, you see the clue of the grandma watching A Christmas Carol, then you are right. It is quite clear it is not purgatory or hell, or them trapped in a snowglobe.
shareUnder normal circumstances, if a director has to put out interviews (and in this case a comic) explaining events in his own movie, he has failed. The movie should be able to stand up under its own merits without something outside of the movie (comics, interviews, video games, etc.) pulling weight the movie should have pulled. Everything in those interviews/comic should have been in the movie. Period. Or at least have been clear enough that interviews/comic wasn't needed.
Now I say under "normal circumstances" because while the director did those things, seems the main problem people have with the movie is the ending, which is leading to great discussions. So even then seems the director made a good movie in spite of himself.
How's this for clear enough?
He cited A Christmas Carol as a heavy inspiration. And guess what? That really shows in the movie. Here are the clues:
A version of the movie shown.
Various "spirits" torment the family because of their lack of Christmas Spirit
The way majority of the family acts like Scrooge in one way or another
Krampus looking pretty much like the Ghost of Christmas Future. With a hint of Ghost of Christmas Present
The Angel toy representing 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.
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.
Too much of A Christmas Carol is in it for it to say they are just all in Hell or a snowglobe purgatory.
If you were responding to me, you didn't refute a word I said. These things should have SOMEHOW been clear in the movie itself without a director going behind it to explain himself in different mediums. How? That would be up to THE DIRECTOR if he's worth his salt. Apparently this one wasn't, but seems like the movie turned out fine anyway.
shareThey were as clear as the nose on your face. Well, if you have a nose that is.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3850590/board/thread/251286589
I didn't read the comic, and I did not think they were 'trapped'... and why does everyone think they'll be living the SAME DAY from now on... that was never mentioned at ALL. So why is it assumed?
3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!
Because many people here put it in their heads that there is a twist ending.
shareif you are trapped in a xmas snowglobe, you probably won't be enjoying Easter or spring or anything outside the snowglobe. It's just logical that they are trapped in xmas morning full of fake happiness that the boy wished for, and was given.
It's not a twist made up by the audience. It's simply taking the film for what it is. Even with the cited article, the dark ending makes sense.
"As Dougherty points out, to him, Christmas movies exist in their own little snow globe, wherein a clashing family, no matter how sick of each other, always manages to overcome their differences and live happily ever after. When it came to their interpretation, however, the family members in their screenplay aren’t so lucky."
Yup cuz they don't get a real happy ending. They get a bull-$h!t snowglobe purgatory. It makes the creators inspirational interpretation of all xmas movies oh so ironic. We get the xmas message, and this horror film gets the horror movie dark ending.
I just saw the movie, and loved it. I really don't know what I think of the ending, and I created a poll to see what everyone else thought.
Vote: http://goo.gl/GNwDei
Results: http://goo.gl/PZR5ID
I considered this, but no, it cannot be a dream. As the movie progresses, we see Max's hand changing the days of his advent calendar. At the most, the last day could have been a dream, but seems unlikely that Krampus would leave them alone after 2 days of torment.
Here's basically what happened:
When Max tries to appeal to Krampus as a sacrifice, the film does the opposite of what is expected, which is kind of refreshing. He does not give mercy and return the family. Krampus is not generous, is not feeling- he is pure evil. When Max asked Krampus to take him as sacrifice, Krampus just took him IN ADDITION to his family. The families he's killed are stuck in a purgatory of sorts in these snowglobes. When Max opens the bell, the family suddenly recalls what has happened. If Max had let Krampus go, they would have been stuck there forever without him, but Krampus took him too, so he's stuck with them.
Except for the part where Michael Dougherty clearly states in an interview or two that Krampus is NOT evil, and is NOT like the slashers from the past; Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, ect. "He is more complex than that."
So, A for effort.
i'm of the opinion krampus is the shadow of saint nicholas. his job is to punish and teach the bad people of the world their wrong doings and hope they can recover from it. and if they do then he keeps a snow globe of the family he helps. and if they are beyond redeption then as it goes they are captured and killed and recycles into evil toys and elves.
to that end when max appealed to krampus to let his family go. krampus accepted max's sacrifice. which is why he laughed and looked directly into maxes face. krampus was looking into max's heart to see if there was true forgiveness in his heart. he needs to know that the family can be saved.. thats why the elves all stoped and looked at krampus and stepped back cause they know krampus is the only one who can make that judgement..
the family i think all then awoke and went on with their days as if nothing ever happened. as they had no memory of the events that took place the night before.. it wasn't till max got the bell each member of the family remembered their part in the nights proceedings and they all realised what krampus did and what each one learned about their own family they that they all just stopped and looked at each other in silence as the camera panned away to see krampus putting the new snow globe on his shelf showing the home he just helped and he moves on to the next family... and as the camera pans out we see all the homes krampus has helped over the years and each home falling appart, showing eather the famnily is still there or the family moved on or the house rotted away as some of the very very old globes looked as is the globes have been there for ages cause the homes are no longer in the human world
[deleted]
man, your condescension is so annoying. Who cares what he said? Besides, is it evil to give a boy his wish? No-not evil at all-sorry, you fail...
shareJust because Krampus is not 'evil' doesn't invalidate his theory.
shareYeah, the purgatory theory can't be taken down by saying Krampus is not evil, or the creator was inspired by other movies.
Unless the creator says the snowglobes are just a vessel to view "helped" families, or shows us in a sequel, I'm going to see this family as being being trapped in a snowglobe in Krampus' office/home. That's a horror movie ending.
We are not watching a feel good Christmas movie. Krampus is there to punish, and he succeeded. No one stopped him. Krampus got the job done, and this family will get to spend xmas morning together whether they want to or not. The boy gets his wish.