(spoilers) I did not like the ending of "Knock at the Cabin"

Submitted by ModeThis t3_11nqg29 in books

Knock at the Cabin is a recent film by M. Night Shamalyan not "directly, but definitely" associated with the book Cabin at the end of the world by Paul G Tremblay.

I do not understand why Hollywood has been so reticent lately to identify or acknowledge the books they "frame for frame" recreate, but I digress.

As the title implies, I do not enjoy the ending the director took (but I do acknowledge the author of the book seems supportive of it).

In the film at the end the partner shoots his partner thus meeting the requirements for sacrifice.

Humanity is saved from a vengeful G-D, and everything is "dandy."

The film ending is "slightly" different than the book ending, where the little girl is shot accidentally, thus not meeting the ritual requirements, and the two partners drive forth into that dark cold night, raging against the proverbial dying of the light (it is intentionally vague but definitely not hopeful).

It just strikes me...odd to make such a change, considering the only major change the director made to the movie from the book is more detailed back stories of characters throughout the film.

Nearly everything else is a "shot for shot" recreation of the book.

I support artistic creative expression and interpretation of films from books, yet this ending seems more of a "play it safe" ending which detracts from the "controversy" of the original ending.

It also completely changes the message of the book, and the direct of 99% of the film until those final moments.

Throughout the book and the film the parents are defiant until the end.

The film changes this to, despite everything that happened, it is "ok now after everything I agree you must die for the greater good, thanks partner 😁"

It's... unsettling.

I appreciate this subs thoughts on the matter.

15

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

CashewGuy t1_jbozq15 wrote

I have not read the book, but found the movie so extremely tiresome and really hated the ending. The only thing I enjoyed was David Bautista.

8

ModeThis OP t1_jbpj21g wrote

Dave Bautista was great.

He's such a diverse actor, and yes his size is sometimes used for "comedic affect" but he is really good at serious roles..

5

majungo t1_jboj8dy wrote

I'm mostly curious about why you censored the word "God"

4

ModeThis OP t1_jbosza4 wrote

Thanks for asking!

Here's an article of explanation: https://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-jews-write-g-d-instead-of-god.htm

I come from a tradition which is not part of the Judaic tradition, but does respect and acknowledge "God" means different things to different people, and often has more than one name, so "G-D" is often used and uplifted (not a requirement but as means of respect).

10

OneGoodRib t1_jbsbd93 wrote

I've also seen people spell it G.od!

There's a Jewish lady I follow on Youtube and while I'm not Jewish myself, I try hard not to write God when I comment on her things because I feel it's respectful to do so, even though it's not my belief that it needs to be "censored" (in quotes because I feel like it's weird to say it's a censor)

1

SpeakingNight t1_jbuftwq wrote

I was upset by the movie!

Obviously not something to dwell on, but the book had a perfect ambiguous ending where they made a choice to weather the storm together with love, whatever may happen.

It was beautiful.

The movie? Religious nutsos were actually right, the end. I needed something more than just "huh, they were right"

In general I'm okay with creative differences in adaptations, but not with who lives or dies. That's too important to the story.

3

Starlit-Sage t1_jbpnf0c wrote

I didn't love this book (tbh I might try to re-read because I may have just been in the wrong headspace at the time, although I don't typically love apocalyptic books) and I haven't seen the movie.

That said... to me, it sounds like that ending ruined the whole thing.... It destroys the ambiguity. We aren't supposed to know for sure that there's really an apocalypse... these could just be a bunch of nuts... or they could be killing people for fun... and the natural disasters are a coincidence because, I mean, just turn on the news and there will probably be an apocalyptic-type event featured.

edit: sorry forgot to get to this part. I suspect they changed it because they thought a child dying would be too upsetting... and they wanted a "happy" (ish) ending?

2

ModeThis OP t1_jbr0zno wrote

Interesting perspective, thanks for your response

1

OneGoodRib t1_jbsbl4y wrote

They definitely changed it because a child dying is upsetting.

Also with how little Asian representation there still is, I wonder how many people would be upset if the one Asian character in the movie died even though that's how it went in the book.

1

Insomniac_Tales t1_jbppspc wrote

I haven't read the book, but I did peruse the wiki before I went to see the movie. I actually really liked the ending the movie took and felt it was done in a way that tugged the heart-strings, but also let you laugh at the absurdity of it and grieve with the partner and his daughter. I think (and this might just be me) American audiences don't really like ambiguity and M. Night opted to give a rather definitive answer. We were definitely talking about it after the movie and it gave me food for thought for days, whereas the darker ending of the book probably wouldn't have played the same way (at least to me) and I would have left the theatre feeling cold and empty.

2

kingrokong11 t1_jbs25fq wrote

I completely agree with you. If you're going to adapt something, make sure you're paying respect to the source material. That being said, I detested The Cabin at the End of the World, so I'm okay with any changes the movie made.

1