Item — HN Reader

The third act is pretty much Jaws after the breakdown of the animatronic shark. There are actual pre-production stills showing aliens [1], but this was found unsatisfactory and the film drifted towards a much more abstract direction. Probably, it's the much better film, because of this. (Personally, I can't think of any solution showing the events in real life that isn't cheesy or even kitschy. It may have been The Abyss of 1960s cinema. As-is, the notion that the first two realistic acts of the film are driving towards an enigmatic, kind of open end, was certainly important for its reception and its long-term relevance.)

[1] Compare https://touringinstability.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/the-alie...

1 comments

What is wrong with The Abyss? The theatrical release was fine. The extended addition with the 5 minute video montage of the aliens preaching to Bud that humans are destructive seemed like the only bad thing to me but that wasn't in the theatrical release.

Hum, the ending had to be remade after first screenings, and even as-is, it's subject to critique by many, diminishing the value of the entire film. (I recall it even being laughed at. I guess, audiences may have become more tolerant, since.) It may have done better with a more abstract solution, as well.

(There may be specific topics where "show, don't tell" becomes "experience, don't show". And 2001 tried to accomplish this. The Abyss, on the other hand, tried still to show, probably failing in its mission. — There was a time when German media theory, in the wake of F.A. Kittler, was kind of obsessed with the written signifier of the novel giving rise to an immediate, visually representative significant. Observed from this perspective, even Clarke's novel takes a step back into abstraction: we may find it hard to invoke an immediate imaginary representation, while reading, the narrative pretty much falls back to us being told, instead of giving rise to imagination, much until the last, much more "tangible" gesture of the Space Child. But, even then, the perspective of the Space Child, cynical without cynicism, and what may come of this, is very much an open ending. So, why not move this openness forward in the plot?)

I am not sure what you're referring to.

In the original cut (I saw it opening day in Westwood Los Angeles, owned the laserdisc, then some special DVD set), Russia and the USA are getting agressive with each other. The military on board, Michael Biehn, is going crazy from pressure disease and the knowledge that there is an enemy (Russia). Bud goes down to stop the bomb sent by Beihn. The aliens come up, their ship miles across, so big that several battleships, Russian and USA are sitting on top of it. The end.

The implication being the wouldn't war happen because of the aliens revealing themselves.

This is a very 2001 ending. All implication

In the extend edition the aliens show Bud videos of human aggression and at the same time make tsunamis appear towering over several coastal cities but hovering still, showing the alien power, the aliens basically saying they'll stop the war through their power. The ship rises. The end

This is a completely different meaning that might (the alien's power) gets to preach and decide. It's effectively spelled out.

The extended edition is bad IMO. On top of the long preachy ending, several earlier unimportant fluff is added that makes the movie drag

This was already the cut ending, as indicated by its abruptness. The extended edition apparently tried to reintroduce some of the original ending. (I guess, the towering tsunamis were a new addition, as this would have hardly been possible with the technology of the day.)

Theatrical version just kind of abruptly.. ends.