Discussion YMMV / GlassOnion

Not only is the vast majority of this the same stuff that was argued against before (it's explicit that there'd be no evidence that Helen started the fire, a painting being more imporant that bringing a murderer to justice), but the entry also is completely missing the point of Klear. Klear has been spelled out repeatedly to be dangerous and impractical, with incredibly dangerous consequences for if something goes wrong (turning everybody's homes into the Hindenburg). Nevermind how the last sentence boils down to "Well they fucked up, so they should have given up on bringing Miles to justice".

In the movie, Klear is indeed portrayed as a dangerous substance that could have killed people. In real life, if there was a solid hydrogen substance that produced explosive gas which could power the whole Glass Onion, while it wouldn't be safe in people's houses, it would most definitely have applications in power plants. This is why I said it's obviously fictional: the audience is just meant to accept "yeah, no superfuel here, this Klear stuff is bad." We have Artistic License – Engineering and Artistic License – Chemistry for that.

That said, there are a number of new points about the truth being found out here. While it is speculative, that comes with being a YMMV audience reaction. Perhaps an edited entry like this:

• Esoteric Happy Ending: The film ends with the Glass Onion and the Mona Lisa being destroyed in a Klear-fueled explosion, which the film paints positively as being the event that will ruin Miles' reputation, since Klear just barbecued the most famous painting in the world. However, Helen intentionally started the explosion. Given the Mona Lisa's worldwide fame and the global outrage probably generated by its destruction (France would be very eager and spare no expense to get to the bottom of the mystery) there will definitely be an extremely thorough investigation into the explosion, which will likely reveal Helen started the fire herself (aside from Miles' testimony, Helen's fingerprints are on the screen button). In all likelihood, Helen will be blamed by the world as the arson who destroyed the Mona Lisa once the investigation uncovers her culpability.

Definitely a better entry, though I don't think it's as likely for Helen to be found out as it claims. Helen's fingerprints being on the button dosen't prove she started the fire. That just proves she, along with several others, were there. Not when or why she pressed it. And the movie had an explicit example of one testimony not being enough against several opposing ones, and the ending made it explicit now the tables were turned on Miles (the others now lying for the truth).

Fair point. However, another thing to consider is that Andi's death gives Helen a motive as well. What's more, just because the others decided to snitch on Miles doesn't mean they won't also snitch on Helen. They may end up spilling the truth under pressure from authorities and interrogation (they don't have to lie about the arson to also testify against Miles).

Perhaps this revision:

• Esoteric Happy Ending: The film ends with the Glass Onion and the Mona Lisa being destroyed in a Klear-fueled explosion, which the film paints positively as being the event that will ruin Miles' reputation, since Klear just barbecued the most famous painting in the world. However, Helen intentionally started the explosion. Given the Mona Lisa's worldwide fame and the global outrage probably generated by its destruction (France would be very eager and spare no expense to get to the bottom of the mystery) there will definitely be an extremely thorough investigation into the explosion, which will likely reveal Helen started the fire herself (aside from Miles' testimony, Helen's fingerprints are on the screen button, Andi's death gives her motive, and the other Disruptors may spill the truth under pressure from authorities and interrogation). In the very possible outcome that the investigation uncovers her culpability, Helen may be blamed by the world as the arson who destroyed the Mona Lisa.

I dunno. I feel like this is stretching beyond what the trope is (failing to be a happy ending due to consequences never occured by the creator) if the prime argument relies on so many dubious hypotheticals.

It doesn't seem dubious to me. Consequences not considered by the creator can involve more than one hypothetical, as long as it's reasonable. The actual downer outcome is a simple one to comprehend: the truth being revealed. I'll add one more suggested revision, trimmed down and acknowledging the outcome as possibility:

• Esoteric Happy Ending: The film ends with the Glass Onion and the Mona Lisa being destroyed in a Klear-fueled explosion, which the film paints positively as the event that will ruin Miles' reputation, since Klear just barbecued the most famous painting in history. However, Helen intentionally caused the explosion. The destruction of the most famous and valuable painting in the world would probably lead to very thorough investigations by authorities (the French government particularly). Aside from Miles' testimony, Helen's fingerprints are on the screen button, Andi's death gives her motive, and the other Disruptors may spill the truth under pressure from questioning and interrogation by authorities. If the truth is uncovered, Helen would be blamed by the world as the arson who destroyed the Mona Lisa.

But when those hypotheticals themselves either don't actually serve as evidence of her comitting the fire, or in the case of the Disruptors testifying against Helen, were explicitly spelled out by the movie as something that won't happen? That's when they feel dubious. The argument for the downer outcome is essentially "something could go wrong in the future" which could be used for pretty much any work's ending. That's why I feel this is way too much of a stretch of the trope's actual usage.

The movie doesn't explicitly spell out that the Disruptors won't testify about the arson, only that they intend to testify about Miles' crimes. Logically, I don't see why they wouldn't do both: Klear would still be disgraced, arson notwithstanding, so they have no incentive to hide the whole truth. This isn't a vague or unlikely "something could go wrong in the future," it's a reasonable cause-and-effect: the Mona Lisa's destruction leads to heavy investigation, and the Disruptors, who have no reason to lie, confess the truth.

Miles explicitly says to the Disruptors that they saw what happened, and asks if they got his back. Their response to that is showing that they'll commit perjury to go against Miles. From the context of the scene, there's logicially no reason to believe why they'd testify against Helen anymore than there'd be a reason to believe that Derol would.

So the main reasons given are either directly argued against by the movie itself (the Disruptors testifying against Helen), or not actually evidence of her causing the fire (the fingerprints on the button, and Andi's death). This is why I beleive this is stretching the trope beyond what it should be used for. It's more of a "What-If" than about why the ending fails at being happy.

After Miles said "We all saw the same thing, we know what happened, am I right?" the Disruptors show their intention to testify of the evidence of Miles' crimes. Also, Derol wasn't present for the arson. I disagree that this explicitly shows they intend to commit perjury (at best, maybe testifying about the arson isn't their priority), but I don't see any more points to argue so I leave that point be.

But regardless of your interpretation, consequences that never occurred to the creator can include logical outcomes, even that which violates characters' dubious claims (for example, we have a Game of Thrones entry despite Tyrion arguing Bran would be a good ruler). If you're under investigation, you have a self-serving incentive to tell the whole truth, and it's a false bifurcation that to testify "against Miles", the Disruptors can't testify "against Helen.". The ending fails at being happy because the logical and likely outcome is that the Disruptors, who have no incentive to lie, confess the whole truth.

Looking it up, the Esoteric Happy Ending about Game of Thrones isn't even contradicting Tyrion's argument. It's about Bran looking like an ambitious asshole and him not being able to bear children, not that he would be a bad ruler. Either way, saying they have no incentive to lie is completely inaccurate. They hate Miles and are willing to screw him over, as they show in response to Miles' question. So again, there's no logical reason for why they'd confess the whole truth if it's in favor of Miles.

This is the equivalent of giving an Esoteric Happy Ending to the original Knives Out saying "The Thrombeys could easily sue for their property back, and since Linda is a succesful businesswoman, she likely has a legal team of her own, and because of Marta's inexperience in legal procedures, they'd probably win." It's a dubious what-if that's directly argued against by the film, and it's entire basis is just "something could go wrong". Not that it's actually likely to happen.

For what it's worth, the Esoteric Happy Ending entry on the YMMV Game of Thrones S8 E6: "The Iron Throne" page does currently offer some arguments that Bran would be a bad ruler (his morality is uncaring for human concerns), which does contradict Tyrion's claim.

To screw over Miles, all they have to do is testify about the evidence of his crimes and that the Mona Lisa was destroyed in the fire, and he'll be screwed for his murders and for his Klear destroying the Mona Lisa (even if it was started by Helen, the whole complex blowing up and burning it would still be newsworthy disgrace for Alpha and Miles). They don't have to commit perjury to do this.

Are you saying they'd hide the arson so that Miles wouldn't have the satisfaction of Helen being prosecuted? If so, I could see that argument, but I still say they have more self-serving incentive to tell the whole truth under investigation, since that would still screw over Miles and protect themselves.

That's fair, but either way, the comparison isn't quite the same because that's still an aspect that's overlooked by the narrative. The whole "Disruptors will tell the truth" portion is brought attention to and rejected by the Disruptors themselves.

As for the self-serving incentive to tell the truth, again, they already shown that they're willing to commit perjury. They all claim to have seen things that they didn't actually see (the napkin he burnt, him taking Duke's gun, him driving away from Andi's house the night she was killed) in response to Miles saying they saw what happened. So again, there's logicially no reason to assume they wouldn't commit perjury about the fire as well if they already told Miles to his face that they'll commit perjury about crimes of his they didn't see. Eespecially when it's in direct response to Miles saying they saw what happened in regards to the fire.

This is so conjecture-heavy you may as well have an entry Esoteric Happy Ending: Breathing in fumes from such a volatile substance as Klear surely will have health effects. The Disruptors probably all will get lung cancer soon.

Actually, arguably worse since the narrative already did address this, so it's more like "even though they got checked and screened for cancer, who knows if they may develop it later?"

It's Miles' word vs. the Disruptors. And the narrative had the Disruptors say they will back Helen. And even as I said below, even if Miles is found not responsible for the fire, he's responsible for Klear, he's responsible for putting in the anti-fail-safe for the Mona Lisa, and Andi has demonstrated she's not particularly concerned for her reputation. Miles is pretty thoroughly stopped, which is Helen's goal.

@Awesomekid42: Okay, I see your point now. I had missed that the Disruptors' statements included actual perjuries, and also missed that Helen had said the same statements were a way to "lie for the truth." "I saw the napkin he burned" is true, as Helen clearly presented it to the Disruptors and Miles couldn't refute it was the real deal, but Claire seeing Miles grab the gun is unlikely, as she'd probably say something earlier if she feared for her life, and Lionel seeing him driving away from Andi's house is unlikely as he said he thought Miles was in Greece. I'll concede the discussion.

@Larkmarn: So what you're saying is, "That's some heavy-duty conjecture"?

Hi. I made the edit in question. Anyway, it's made apparent that there aren't any security cameras at Miles' mansion (he burned the napkin in front of everyone and gave Duke the pineapple filled glass) which if there was security cameras, would be evidence to use against him, but Blanc admitted they have none. Cross-examination in of itself requires going over witness testimony, and with nobody backing up Miles and with whoever Miles' lawyer would be having no proof that they're lying, it would be the word of one guy against 6 others, making him much less likely to be believed. The only physical evidence that Helen caused the fire was destroyed by Helen herself, so all they'd have is her fingerprints on the button, (which would really only show that she was there at the mansion. Not that Helen caused the fire) and the button would also haves Miles' prints, so that alone can't determine that Helen's at fault.

Ultimately, all that would happen is that some people might believe Miles' words, but that wouldn't be enough to legally punish Helen for anything.

I was the one who originally wrote up the Esoteric Happy Ending entry and I still think the destruction of the Mona Lisa in and of itself qualifies this trope - especially because the film treats Helen's actions as heroic, awesome and cathartic to bring down Miles rather than as a bittersweet decision.

Yeah, the part about the Mona Lisa's destruction on it's own I kept. It was just the lines about an investigation leading to the finger being pointed to Helen that I removed.

Agreed with the deletion, and agree with the original entry. I disagree with the sentiment, but it is a real, notable Audience Reaction with people on these boards that think Helen is just as bad as Miles for destroying the painting.

The pure conjecture of the last two sentences is utterly unnecessary. Even if it's entirely accurate (that some people will believe Miles), it's irrelevant as it's already set up as a bittersweet ending and that, well, Miles is still stopped and ruined and to Helen "getting blamed by some" would be considered an acceptable loss for stopping Miles, getting justice for her sister, and accomplishing the goal she died for.

After thinking on this more, my thoughts are getting a bit sprawling.

In light of the above arguments, it seems unlikely that Helen would be convicted of anything soon. However, the destruction of the Mona Lisa would likely be a heavily scandilized and scrutinized historical event. The other Disruptors testifying about Miles murdering Andi would also present a motive for Helen, and as Awesomekid42 mentioned, there are fingerprints on the button. Whether or not detectives and historians could discern the truth seems uncertain. But as Larkmarn mentioned, Helen may not even care about being blamed. It ultimately seems speculative, so I'll concede this point.

Regarding the original entry, "a priceless work of art that many people believe didn't need to be destroyed to bring him down." I interpreted that statement as meaning that the Mona Lisa "didn't need to be destroyed to bring him down"... because there could be ANOTHER method to bring Miles down. I'm not sure what that method would be, but I'd suppose it'd involve whether the truth about Klear could be exposed in time, without destroying the Mona Lisa. But again, speculative.

However, RossN's point was about the film's perceived presentation of Helen's actions in a "heroic, awesome and cathartic" way rather than "bittersweet." Also, edit history shows that mod Synchronicity deleted RossN's original version of the entry, because 'It's not portrayed as "unambiguously happy". They acknowledge that Bron will only see justice because the Mona Lisa's destruction is that horrific And That's Terrible'. CharlesPhipps added the current entry.

I personally found Helen's action morally questionable, but not because of the Mona Lisa, but because blowing up the Glass Onion could realistically kill someone. So in this case, the "Esoteric Happy Ending" would either be Helen being prosecuted for life-endangering arson, or her getting away scot-free with it. This sounds more like a different trope, though.

As it stands, it doesn't seem like we should have an entry at all.

I'm fine with removing the entry. The stuff about legal charges is way too reliant on speculation, and the destruction of the Mona Lisa not being needed to be destroyed, being debatable outside, I don't think a painting's destruction (no matter how famous) outweighs bringing down a corrupt murderer.

Given Charles Phipps was my aforementioned "(person) on these boards that think Helen is just as bad as Miles for destroying the painting," if he's the one who added the entry as a whole, I'm fine for removing it. Based on his posts, this entry, and a cynical view of humanity, I assumed there was a decent crowd of people who thought the Mona Lisa was worth the life of justice for two people plus however many people Miles would take in the future... given the connection between the two, I suppose I have to walk it back.

Like I said in my original post, it's not posited as good that the Mona Lisa had to be destroyed and already somewhat of a Bittersweet Ending.

Alright, the entry is already commented out, but if there's no further objections, I'll remove it entirely. Please discuss the issue further before reverting it.