In going along with Peter’s “rant” about what constitutes a spoiler on the Internets, I’m not sure if the following quote from director Carter Smith about The Ruins is one or not. If you’ve read the book by Scott Smith, it’s definitely not, and the info should please you. But if you haven’t, you’ll know what’s in store to a certain degree this April if you see the post-college dread horror thriller set in Mexico starring Jena Malone. With that out of the way, Smith tells Bloody Disgusting he doesn’t see a sequel in the cards…
“I haven’t talked at all about a sequel [to The Ruins],” says Smith. “Audiences are so jaded these days that they just assume it’s set up for a sequel, while the ending you saw was about keeping the integrity of the darkness,” he explains. “That was what I loved about the book was that it was so bleak and dark… I couldn’t believe it ended the way it did, it took me by surprise.”
See, to me, I’d rather not know if a film’s ending is the opposite of a walk into the sunset before I see it. You? And if the ending leaves ambiguity for a sequel, even more so. Such endings are a turn-off to me. I’m curious to see if The Ruins connects, as a sort of mid-brow Touristas, but either way, it seems Smith won’t have difficulty with a creative follow-up, mentioning Troll (apparently not a remake of the 1986 cult flick and unrelated to this same-named 2009 film) and Come Closer as his candidates.
“There are a couple projects I’m working, a adaptation of a book called Come Closer, by Sara Gran,” he continues, “[It's] the story of a New York women who becomes convinced she might be possessed by a demon. Then there’s a book that I adapted into a screenplay called Troll, [which is] a very adult fairy tale. [It's] Strange dark cross between E.T. and Lolita.”
Wow. I’m on Team Troll, there is no doubt.
February 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I have read the book and the very last paragraph of the book feels like an obvious attempt at a sequel however that was probably not the authors intention while writing the book but if it is translated to the movie it could really suck because that is such a cliche in horror movies that most people will probably not like it. I was hoping that they did not have that last para in the movie but reading this it seems like they are going to keep it that way.
February 16th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
What? Are they going to fight the Ruins? Like ” Ruins 2: This Time It’s Personal……………
February 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“See, to me, I’d rather not know if a film’s ending is the opposite of a walk into the sunset before I see it. You?”
Well, it worked for Cloverfield, and it largely works for zombie movies (though someone usually survives).
February 18th, 2008 at 7:51 am
I’ve read the book, and if the movie is anything like it then I can’t imagine anyone wanting a sequel. That was one of the worst books I’ve ever read, to be honest.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:10 am
@ BlueNight
Yeah, but did you really think Cloverfield would have such a bleak ending a la BWP? I didn’t, but in that case, yes, I thought the ending was ideal. As for happy-ending zombie films, what about Night of the Comet?
April 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Before I throw my two cents in regarding the ending, since this is my first I feel compelled to respond to the commenting rules on this site:
“… If you must argue, please debate intelligently.”
Now, I have no problem with being encouraged to debate intelligently, but my initial reaction to the qualifying phrase “if you must argue” is not a pleasant one as it sort of dismisses what the term “argument” objectively denotes and instead focuses on a limited, negative connotative aspect of it, implying that arguments are something that we would be better off not having. Sorry, but as a reasonable, intelligent individual I find this attiude rather lazy and condescending.
Ah, but I digress…
I take umbrage witht the studio executives and/or movie producers and distributors who lack the courage and integrity to deliver audiences an ending to a movie that might offend their delicate sensibilities as a result of being weened on cookie-cutter formulaic tripe. I guess you can see where this is going, eh?
Scott Smith’s novel, The Ruins, was one of the most harrowing stories I’ve had the “pleasure” to read in some time. It’s steadily progressing fatalistic bleakness culminating in an uncompromisingly bleak ending is what makes the story so memorable. Surely Mr. Smith, who adapted his own novel in writing the movie’s screenplay (which was admirably faithful up until the ending) knew this. And I cannot believe that the decision to alter the novel’s ending in favor of one more favorable to “mainstream” (i.e. less sophisticated) audiences was Mr. Smith’s.
Whatever happened to the bygone days of the late 60s and 70s, at the advent of the R-rating in America (which was originally, briefly an M for mature), which began with Bonnie and Clyde? Back in those heady days of cinematic creativity, filmmakers intent on making movies FOR ADULTS shockingly treated their audiences LIKE ADULTS (what a concept!!!) and refused to pander to childish sensibilities that needed to be placated and ENTERTAINED by the fantasy that every story must have some semblence of a happy ending.
There’s a reason that tragedies are not referred to as comedies. And we would do well to keep this in mind.
To anyone who remembers the travesty done to The Vanishing when it was remade for American audiences, we can add the alteration of the ending of Stephen King’s Cujo when it was adapted for the screen, the injustice done to The Descent when the original ending was trimmed for American audiences to give it the illusion of a happy ending. And now, of course, The Ruins is ruined by meddlesome studio executives tampering with a classic genre story in the hopes of generating some extra revenue from word of mouth by movie goers who might recommend the movie to others based on the fact that they didn’t leave the theater entirely depressed by the ending? This is the ultimately soulless effect of unbridled capitalist greed, people: If there’s even the thought that an extra nickel of box office can be procured by compromising the integrity of a movie, you can be sure that some greedy-ass studio executive will push to do just that.
And for that reason, let me end my rant by tipping my hat - so to speak - to both Frank Darabont and Michael Hanecke who I’m sure fought valiently with corporate coxsuckers AND WON in staying true their respective visions regarding the endings of The Mist and Funny Games [remake] respectively. These men are heroes in an age where the rule is that people will gladly compromise their vision and give into greedy, soulless corporate interests for the promise of a hassle-free pay day.
Again, Frank Darabont and Michael Hanecke, I salute you. I only wish that I could be saluting Scott Smith as well. At the very least here’s hoping that a faithful alternate ending appears on a collector’s edition DVD in the future.
Peace.
September 20th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Actually I’m one of those who really enjoy dissecting movies like these. I really really hope that we will see a second movie where “they” for example send a group of scientists to investigate this plant after the strange death of a young american woman (of course the girl driving away in the ending). And they can uncover some new facts for us viewers.
I would for example want to know how the plants can move so rapidly, how they can mimic sounds, how they can hear what they mimic, what part of this plant could make the dission to make just the cell phone noise of all the sounds it could have mimiced to lure them down there and what this “part” of the plant could be? Something even more horrible.
There. With an ending where everybody dies and the plant is left just as it was in this movie would be enough for me. But I would really want to know more. It was such an original horror movie that I just can’t be satisfied with just this.
And that was it for me. Thank you.