Hollywood Forces New Ending on Lurhmann’s ‘Australia’

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on November 10, 2008

Editor’s Note: This article contains SPOILERS. If you don’t want to know how Australia ends, read no further. Consider yourself warned. Also, consider yourself unusual for caring about the ending of this film.

Personally, I don’t really care that much about spoiling this movie for myself despite the fact that I actually am mildly looking forward to it. But no matter how lukewarm I am about Luhrmann’s latest offering, I feel far stronger about Hollywood using test audiences to change a director’s vision.

According to The Australian Herald Sun, Luhrmann folded to studio pressure to change the ending of his film after the death of its main character – played by Hugh Jackman – was a total downer. Apparently, killing heroes at the end of a film is a little too sad clown for test audiences. Seriously. A ton of the test reviewers highly suggested that that version of the ending change. Probably since it evoked some strong emotions from them. Which, art should. Never. Do.

The studio listened. And apparently they made Baz listen.

Which is the real tragedy here. I’m an unapologetic fan of Luhrmann’s work. I think he does really well with telling strong character-stories that end with death. Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were made stronger because of the tragic element. It’s unclear whether Jackman’s character’s death is a truly warranted, tragic one, but with Luhrmann, I would guess it likely – so his riding off into the sunset might feel forced and…Hollywood-y. Since, admittedly, it is.

So the original vision for the film has been compromised by focus groups. It makes economic sense with the gigantic bill the studio is footing for this massive project, but it’s still a little sad. Perhaps the studio could have saved everyone some time by having the focus group on set to help direct the film, too.

What do you think? Do you care about Australia or its ending? Or its changed ending?

Related Reading:

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

Matt

I don't care about this movie.

But that is so lame.

Cole Abaius

Damned it all, Matt. You just summed up my feelings far more succinctly than I could in the post.

Joshi

Well, we've heard of Hollywood doing this before, but frankly, with the type of ambition and scope this movie has going for it, this change will probably make the difference come awards time, and not for the good. Good old 20th Century Fox, screwing themselves over again.

And to all those test screener's, listen I'd be the first to admit, I'd have preferred it if Nicole Kidman hadn't died at the end of Moulin Rouge, but I DON'T think it'd have been a better movie because of that. It's simply the happy ending we all crave and when Hollywood doesn't give us it, it may not feel good, but dammit, sometimes it just feels right.

With that said, if anything we can hope that, like the removal of the cancer plotline from Fanboys, this decision may be reversed should people on the internet start protesting... but of course, that was the Weinstein company, and this is 20th Century Fox... so probably not.

Mladen

Titanic: highest grossing date/chick movie of all time. Does anybody remember how that one ended? hmmmmm...

Argh!

Well, since the ending was all about Nicole overcoming things, facing the harshness
of the Australian outback and independantly striving on at the death of her lover -
showing how much she's grown and making a really strong statement... and we're
turning that into what? She's on her own because her bloke ditched her?

I can really see the girls warming to that.

David G

Anyone else hungry for Outback? ...Anyone?...

D Train

So they pulled some idiot off the street, have him some free popcorn, and let him watch this movie in advance. Then at the end, they give him a questionaire with a generalized question like "what would you have changed about this film?" And the response from your average Joe Whyaminotatworkitsatuesdayforchristsake is, "Derr, Ending make Joe sad. Joe no like sad."

What suprises me is that these execs listen to them. They are basically saying that the average dumbass off the street is better at their job than they are.

Wait, actually that doesn't suprise me at all. Nevermind.

big K

What's wrong with downer endings?

Life is chock full of 'em, and you don't see us bitching about it!

I'd love to meet the paste-eaters who think a happy ending should be tacked on the end of every movie just to see if they are the result of what happens when brothers and sisters mate.

I wonder what would happen if these jokers were in the preview screenings of "The Wild Bunch" and "Dr. Strangelove"

Robert Fure

None of us have seen the movie though. Maybe the ending that had Jackman dying felt forced or tacked on or weak. There are some movies I watch where at the end, the lead dies and you feel cheated, not sad or like he died. When the character dies for no reason it feels like "Hey man, killing this guy will be like, emotional" and that is a forced decision. Maybe the movie will be better with him surviving.

magickbetty

I saw the movie yesterday. It was terrible. The special effects were badly done which only made the action scenes incredibly unbelievable. I'm so relieved that Nicole admits she was terrible in this movie. I have been questioning her acting since Golden Compass. I'm a real movie freak and will go see anything, but changing the ending would have had no effect on this stinker. The acting of the child and getting to see Hugh were the only things that kept me from falling asleep.

Hollywood Forces New Ending on Lurhmann’s ‘Australia’

Related Topics:

Related Reading: