Stories are a form of communication. Like all art & entertainment.

If the audience doesn’t get the message, you failed. I’ve been arguing with fellow creatives about the endings to The Mist and No Country for Old Men. Let me say this first, I think they are both good endings and it is not the endings themselves that have to change.

My problem is the endings don’t work. What the creators were trying to communicate is not coming across the way it was meant. How do I know?

The Mist left most people in the audience angry and upset. No Country for Old Men left the audience confused. Now, the debate is that the creator did what they wanted to do, this is how the story is supposed to be, and it’s art. It shouldn’t have to be changed for the Lowest Common Denominator.

Hey, I also agree. But consider this; Do you think the creators of The Mist intended for the audience to be angry at the ending? Do you think either McCarthy or the Coen brothers intended for the audience to be confused at the end of No Country for Old Men?

If that was the goal, then they succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. No harm, no foul, and we can all go about our lives.

BUT… and this is a big but… IF they did not intend for the audience to feel that way at the end, then they made a mistake somewhere. It doesn’t mean the endings have to change, but it might mean that the way the endings are delivered should be given a little more attention.

If your story is misunderstood, you can be an ignoramus and a jackass by calling the audience stupid. Or you could investigate why the audience felt that way, and either fix it in the existing story or devote extra attention to a future one.

Did the audience get what you were trying to convey? Really, that’s the only important question. Art and entertainment are a form of communication and if the audience more often than not mistakes the message then you need to work on your communication skills.