What's the appeal of a Downer Ending?

This is something that's been bugging me for years, I finally got around to asking about it.

I'm a man who loves villains. I'm a man who loves Earn Your Happy Ending. I'm a man who follows Don Bluth's principles regarding angst in cinema. I can handle bad stuff happening to a character. It's good, it helps them grow, gets us to sympathize with them better.

What I don't understand is the appeal of Downer Endings. The idea that a film can be so unabashadly cynical, yet still entertain people is completely absurd to me. Now before it sounds like I'm being closed minded, there are loads of genres that I dislike (romance for example), but even if I personally have a distaste for it, I can still understand why others would like it. I can understand the appeal. That's my beef with Downer Endings: I don't see their appeal.

We're supposed to develop an attatchment to our protagonist, we're supposed to care about his motivations, his relationships, and his actions. When a film ends with everything being completely, inoperably destroyed... I honestly don't see how an audience can react in any way other than feeling empty and unfulfilled. I can understand this being the point of the film, to evoke this reaction, what I can't see is how anyone can find this entertaining.

A Bittersweet Ending I get. Bad stuff happens, people die, but in the end something good or hopeful has become of the film's events. This doesn't happen with Downer Endings, and I don't get it.

edit: Maybe I'm too much of an idealist

edited 2nd Oct '11 3:26:45 PM by gingerninja666

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Some people really don't care about the ending much in a more "how you get to the finishline is more important than where the actual finishline is itself" kinda way.

Some are message based, just a Tear Jerker or a Downer Ending with a Sequel Hook.

Also True Art Is Angsty.

edited 2nd Oct '11 3:44:05 PM by Raso

Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!

Some stories will end sadly by their nature. Forcing a happy ending on them would be to ruin their quality.

Also, Downer Endings aren't necessarily a sign of cynicism. They might be, but it's not necessary.

I like all kinds of endings, as long as they're appropriate to the rest of the story.

edited 2nd Oct '11 3:53:16 PM by DoktorvonEurotrash

Downer Endings are often the result of having a message to share and taking a situation to it's logical conclusion. It may not be "fun," but getting people to pay attention is the most important goal of any storyteller. Just look up the real world situation that The Day After influenced.

No, that I understand. What I don't get is how people can seek these movies out and take enjoyment from watching them. You yourself said that it isn't meant to be fun

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

They can be a powerful tool to help people learn a lesson; some stories with a Downer Ending are also incredibly dramatic for the most part, and people might watch the story for the drama. I personally like Earn Your Happy Endings, or Bittersweet Endings better, but I can see the merit in a Downer Ending, as well.

edited 2nd Oct '11 6:25:24 PM by tropetown

Oh, there are a few reasons to seek out a Downer Ending.

One, it might not necessarily be fun, but it can be quite beautiful. Or perhaps admirable (if it's a downer because the protagonist goes to a certain doom, because they remain true to themselves). Or perhaps inspirational. In short, not everyone takes in a piece of media simply for fun.

For another, when you're feeling bad, it sometimes can make you feel better. "Fun" isn't the right word for it, but seeing others suffer as well, perhaps worse, can improve one's mood - someone understands... and it could always be worse. This is the same impetus that causes people to listen to Joy Division after a breakup.

Beyond those two, sometimes, it can actually be fun to have a complete downer for an ending. Mind you, you generally have to set it up to be a Black Comedy, and even the most morally upright person ends up being an Unsympathetic Comedy Protagonist. But schadenfreude is just as legitimate a way to experience fun via entertainment than any other.

Finally, related to the above but for drama, sometimes, there is no good guy. For some people, there is simply justice seeing a Villain Protagonist fail to profit just like all the other bad guys fail miserably. I know, there's some amount of Hays Code moralizing in all that, but the fact of the matter is, some people take in media to watch the bad guys always fail... and if the movie is just full of bad guys, then it needs to end badly for all of them, which would be a downer ending.

Not everyone would agree with the above points. But there are enough people that would, so there will always be a place for a downer ending.

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

I get enjoyment out of downer endings. See: Macbeth, Scarface, The Stranger. In those cases there's stuff other than plot to appreciate, like Character Development and whatnot. I like the tragic hero, especially the kind with hubris (The Stranger's more of an existentialist thing, though).

What I don't like: Shoot the Shaggy Dog stories.

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am...

Grave Of The Fireflies is a huge downer, but it still entertained me. I don't have to be happy to be entertained, I just have to feel strong emotion.

I'm pretty sure the concept of Law having limits was a translation error. -Wanderlustwarrior

Another point - not everyone agrees on which endings are downers. For example, check out Brazil - both Bittersweet Ending and Downer Ending are cited there, and both are valid reactions (my dad and I get a perverse joy in debating it - we both love the movie in part because we love the ongoing discussion... for the record, I argue for bittersweet).

Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.

Actually, now that you mention it: "What's the appeal of Shoot the Shaggy Dog stories?" should've been the title of this thread. For some reason when I was thinking of them the term Downer Ending popped into my head. My bad.

Come to think of it, one of my favourite films is The Fly, and that's including its ending (though I'd argue there's at least a little bit of hope to it, making it semi-bittersweet)

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Well, some of us don't have to develop an attachment to the protagonist in order to care about their motivations/relationships/actions and find them interesting/entertaining to watch/read about. It's not necessary to root for the protagonist. It can be fun to root against them.

You say that as if there's a conflict between cynicism and entertainment value. But the way I see it, cynicism is a source of entertainment, not an impediment to it. Negativity is fun. Complaining is fun. Schadenfreude is fun. Destruction, doom, and death are cathartic and provide closure. Not to mention the fact that if you happen to be a cynic, a cynical movie validates your worldview. And it feels good to be right.

I am not sure about everyone else but Downer Endings tend to stick more with me than Happy ednings. If its well written and consistent witht he story, it doesn't matter what the ending is. Sometimes Downer Endsings especially with tragedies make sense for the story.

"We are just like Irregular Data. And that applies to you too, Ri CO. And as for you, Player... your job is to correct Irregular Data."

I'd just like to say, this thread has been pretty enlightening.

I, like the OP, have never seen the appeal in a Downer Ending and often wondered why people did. And on a personal level, I'm still wondering - all of the reasons given in this thread don't really convince me much. But I can understand how they could work for other people, and after all, people's preferences are subjective.

That's pretty much what I wanted to know. I can cope with not liking something as long as I can understand why other people like it.

edited 5th Oct '11 5:03:35 AM by gingerninja666

"Contests fought between two masters are decided instantly. An invisible battle is now raging between the two of them." Lulu vs Schneizel

Might get a bit wanky here, so bear with:

A story is satisfying when it fits a certain mental archetype we have of how stories go. We like to see a main character learn about him/herself, defeat a monster either real or metaphorical, and return as a fully realised person (usually represented by hooking up with the Love Interest). What we find satisfying is not necessarily a happy ending, but an ending that fits our archetypical, instinctive desire to see virtuous and growing characters rewarded with a good resolution, and bad and stagnant characters get punished or at the very least find no resolution.

This is why a Downer Ending can be satisfying. If the character has not done anything to earn a happy ending (not as in the trope Earn Your Happy Ending, which is about a happy ending requiring obscene amounts of suffering; I mean this in the sense that a character must act with some degree of virtue and grow as a person), we don't want to see them get a happy ending, at least in a serious story. A character who acts completely selfishly, screws over other people and gets a castle full of amorous supermodels out of it isn't a hero, he's a villain enjoying the moment before the hero comes and humiliates him.

OP, try watching a film with a Downer Ending and looking for what the main character does that causes him not to deserve a happy ending, or a fully happy one. Here's an obvious one: If he starts fairly sane and fortunate (but with a nagging feeling of something wrong), does one terrible thing, and then slowly spirals downwards into moral bankruptcy, violent insanity and death, you're watching a classic Tragedy, where the character deserves no happy ending due to his inability to defeat his Tragic Flaw.

Somewhat less obvious ones are mixed, bittersweet endings, which are generally happy but with the shadow of a character's death looming over them, or the knowledge the world will be destroyed in ten years, and so on. But these follow the same overall pattern - characters who grow up get rewarded, characters who don't get punished. Just watch determining what choices the main character makes, whether he convincingly grows as a hero, whether characters who die are mentor figures (representing 'growing up') or love interests (representing 'failure to maintain adult responsibilities'), and so on and so forth. If the ending feels remotely satisfying, chances are everyone got what their character development was going to give them.

That's not to say there aren't badly written Downer Endings out there which are just tossed in to traumatise the viewer, of course. And they're just as annoying as Deus ex Machina happy endings, for the same reason. But generally, a Downer Ending that follows the actions of the characters in the story is just as satisfying as a Happy Ending, and part of the reason True Art Is Angsty is because the Downer Ending allows the author to present more messed-up individuals without having to work them through their neuroses to a point that might seem unrealistic.

The Other Wiki can help you:

See Catharsis

I agree with you; as a rather sentimental troper, I would rather not see a movie that would make me bawl for two hours after watching it. However, this can be great catharsis for many people, I guess, and some people just enjoy a good cry.

Cold on the outside, burning on the inside! I'm like a paradox or something!

I don't get anyone in this thread. Downer endings are plenty of fun for me. It's just beautiful to see a character suffer, and a Downer Ending distills that, instead of diluting it by tacking on a happy ending.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

Downer endings, if one perceives a happy ending in a particular context as "unrealistic," can be seen as the more courageous approach. I've definitely seen that attitude with regards to Bittersweet Endings, such as Quasimodo not ending up with Esmeralda. (And, in turn, the sequel getting him a girlfriend as being a copout.)

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Not all of us are complete sadists. Sure, I like to see characters suffer as much as anybody else, but throw the dog a freaking bone!

Yeah, unwritten rule number one: follow all the unwritten procedures. - Camacan

But sometimes, a dog eating a bone just isn't entertaining or satisfying.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

As long as we can agree to disagree, that's fine. True Art Is Not Angsty is just as invalid a view as True Art Is Angsty.

But True Art Is Angsty is not a valid view. My view is that true art can be as angsty as it likes.

At first I didn't realize I needed all this stuff...

...I'm not sure how that's different from what I just said. True Art Is Angsty and its hypothetical opposite are invalid because they try and define "objective" True Art based on whether it's angsty or not, when angst is neither inherently good nor inherently bad.