SEVEN

The nemesis gets exactly what he wants.

And any other ending would have seemed like a cop-out.

I just think endings need to be appropriate to the rest of the story.

On a narrative level I agree with Scott for the most part, yet on a social I don't, albeit that's not put to question here.

Allow me a brief flatulence of the cerebral cortex.

I feel that this desire to see the nemesis "get whats coming to him" is a bad thing in itself, stemming from ancient believes. It's an ingrained human emotion associated with such nonsensical dogmas as eternal suffering and damnation -- sentiments not just inhuman but incidentally un-biblical. I blame the church: 'evil will burn forever in hell'. Thus it is a natural response to many to believe that bad guys need to be severely punished, and thus the viewer expects revenge and that justice be executed swiftly and violently -- a principle all revenge-films are built on. In real life we would not make a bad person go through the pain that they've caused... they are simply brought to justice and usually brought to a quick death if that be the judgement. As examples serve the Nazi war criminals and Saddam Hussein. Still, the church ingrained and now film-industry supported reaction is always a violent one: that's how torch-and-pitchfork mobs form. Reminds me of a grave I saw on Boot Hill in Tombstone: "He was right, we was wrong, but we strung him up and now he's gone." Somehow that rings wrong to me and seems a bad reflection of our society.

Hence I'd like to add my worth of salt and say that there is something to be said for the nemesis to walk away in the end or get off lightly. It does work at times (although its very relative of course). John LeCarre's novels greatly influenced my writing and storytelling, and the fact that the evil nemesis and bad guys often walk away not just unharmed but as the victors, left a strong impression on me. That is not to say evil deeds are excused or "bad is the new good", but it does reflect a more accurate image. Evil wins. Evil prevails. It's realistic. Then again, whoever said films are a reflection of realism...

However, it is also regional. As an example I'd like to point to the 1949 British black-comedy 'Kind Hearts and Coronets' that deals exclusively with the protagonist's quest to murder eight of his family members (all eight brilliantly played by no-less than Sir Alec Guinness) in order to inherit a dukedom. As it is a British film, he succeeds and walks away a Duke. However, for the US release an additional ten seconds of footage were added, hinting on him being caught (thank you Hayes Code). Indeed, the feeling of "the bad guy must suffer" (or as The Shadow knows "Crime does not pay") is surprisingly focused on the American continent. Blame Hayes? A Quaker background? I'll be damned if I know...

All right, brain-fart over. As you were.

Steve Kmetko. That's all I'll say.

It's a wonderful life:

Mr Potter does get his comeuppance -- The town of Bedford Falls rallies behind George at the end. It's the perfect ending and Mr Potter's future was probably very bleak; who'd want to look after that horrible man?

@DS: We can envision Potter being quite upset that George prevails, the Building & Loan survives, and all around good will breaks out in Bedford Falls -- but that all takes place off-screen and after FADE OUT. So whatever 'suffering' Potter endures is left to our imagination and not visualized at all in the movie. I guess you could say it's implied suffering.

Ugh. I just rewrote my ending and this post is causing me a lot of stress. I don't know what to do now.

i think part of the issue is to realize that there are two kinds of Nemesis characters.

there are actives, which are those criminal being hunted types etc.

and passives. Passives are characters that embody a force that is saying no to a character. It is that force that is the true 'enemy'

For example, Little Miss Sunshine. The Nemesis of that movie isn't any one person but rather the very idea of "you can't, you will fail". It is embodied in all kinds of people. Grossman, the woman at the pageant, even the car repair guy and the entire Air Force.

The movie is about these folks getting past the world saying "You can't" to find a way. Which is best seen in the two kids. Dwayne, having found out that he is very possible color blind and can't join the Air Force, says "Fuck the Air Force. I'll find a way to do what I want to do"
And then Olive, hearing everyone say she will be laughed out, find the strength to do it anyway. Showing such passion and courage that the adults in the family even jump in and support her. To hell with the rules.

Because the Nemesis is a force, there's no one to punish in the end. but something is still gained by the 'hero'.

As I mentioned over on the message board, if the film is not a tragedy, the audience has to feel a level of satisfaction and/or justice that the antagonist/nemesis was thwarted. Even if we don't see the antagonist on screen going "Curses! Foiled again!" the story needs to uphold that notion.

For example, in It's a Wonderful Life, Old Man Potter actually believes he won -- that George Baily is going to be sent to jail. Potter even triumphantly slams the phone down. However, that's not what happens, and an audience will therefore presume that the next day, Christmas, is going to be the worst day in Potter's miserable life when he learns that the Bailey Savings and Loan has been saved.

That we don't see it doesn't matter as much as the fact that it's a true enough possibility according to the story's universe.

Old post here, but it interested me. Obvious question, can you add more depth to your nemesis characters by insinuating that them, or at least one of them, have a vested interest beyond his job as cop, in your protag's undoing? That would give more umph to your story and more leverage in your ending. I mean, surely not all cops (or any other profession) has only a salary to motivate. By just adding a bit of subtext in one of the cops' (at least) approach to his job, you'd have more reason to give a more meaningful ending than a Norse legend of evil trumps good. And you'd have a more interesting story along with a more satisfied audience.