"…it had a different ending but in the middle of shooting, I knew it was a piece of shit," Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu told us quite candidly last month. "I felt it and the film began to breathe by itself, and the characters began to grow. I went in and wrote it with Alexander [Dinelaris] and Nico [Giacobone], and I am so happy that I changed it. Now I feel very good about the ending. It feels very fair." But what about the scrapped finale? At the time, Inarritu didn’t share with us what he originally had in mind, only to say, "It would be so embarrassing. It was bad." Well, now we know.
Co-writer Dinelaris has spilled the beans on "The Q&A Podcast" (via Screen Rant), and we’ll just let him explain what the filmmakers originally had in mind **SPOILERS AHEAD**:
“Then the camera prowled like it did the whole film, went back stage through the halls we’ve seen the whole time and we’d get to the dressing room where literally Johnny Depp would be sitting looking in the mirror and putting on his Riggan Thomson wig and then the poster of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean 5′ would be in the back. In Jack Sparrow’s voice [it would say], ‘What the f*** are we doing here, mate?’ It was going to be the satire of the endless loop of that.”
And, it’s a bit easy to see why that was axed. Aside from the fact they couldn’t get Depp (who we’d guess thought this hit too close to the bone) nor do a parody of ‘Pirates 5’ (probably for legal reasons), it’s just a little too on the nose. Given everything that happens prior to Riggan Thomson’s leap out of the hospital window (a beautifully, enigmatic way to close the film with Emma Stone‘s beaming face watching him), suddenly flipping to a real life celebrity cameo would’ve been jarring and a bit easy. So here’s to better ideas winning the day.
I think Depp at the end would have been a perfect ending. If he then came down on himself did autofellatio it would be even greater. A symbolic gesture of art vs life.
I agree with Michael. The film does not need this kind of circle of meaning. And I find it strange to say that the end is the weakest part. For me it totally agree with the film as a whole.
Mel Gibson would have been a better choice than Depp and less cheeky.
You guys are honestly insane, I felt as I was reading this that it HAD to be a joke. Would have been an unfathomably laughable way to end the film, and as embarrassing as Inarritu suggested. To even suggest this was a film simplistic enough to have a specific "point" or "moral" to drive home is ridiculous as well, it isn\’t that kind of film. You guys totally don\’t get it.
I agree that the ending of the film was it\’s weakest point. It failed to drive home the message of the film. The Depp ending would have been hilarious, true to the comedic satire of the film, and would have brought it full circle.
That sounds like a perfect ending to me. Ballsy, full-circle, makes sense. The ending as it is now works symbolically, but it was a little disappointing, the film\’s weakest part. It didn\’t drive home the point of the film as well as this more scathing ending.