Making a good movie ending

written by Ken Wegorowski on September 16, 2017

Basically there are some standard techniques that film makers use to signify and end to their movie. I want to touch on just one of those that I had never seen done before. In the film “Margin Call” they didn’t end the verbal sound track.

Most films will conclude the voice and atmospheric sound and then start roll of credits with music. This film went to black, started the credit roll, but never turned off the sound for what had been going on in the scene prior. This was a great technique for this particular film that instead of ending the entire movie made it so that we were still there but just not visualizing it. This happens in life and it is why this technique can be effective movie making. We sometimes play these events in our minds visually and with sound, but sometimes we cut the sound and keep the visuals, or keep the visuals and cut the sound. Did you catch that? I said the same thing twice. Just be careful to not “Blair Witch” this movie ending technique!


Add some excitement

What could have been a boring presentation as to how to remove algae from a swimming pool was turned into something fun. Few film makers will go to these lengths to make sure their viewers get a real kick out of what they are watching but when they do, it makes the movie what  it should be, entertaining.


As you saw instead of just narrating how it should be done, he let the props lead him into what really happens and then what should be done about it.

This technique should be employed in all films. I call it “getting dirty”. It provides more excitement, intrigue, inducing smiles and laughter with simple effective presentation as to how to solve a common problem.



Avoid bobble heading in film

A very popular technique today in filming is what I like to call “bobbleheading”. It’s where someone narrates in front of the camera, talking fast, moving their head around, making lots of facial expressions that are very animated.

Basically they look like a blending of bobbleheads and cartoon characters. I think this technique is overused. Most videos I watch that are presented like this lose my interest after a short time.

I was trying to watch a video of 10 things banned in the United States and it was a lot of work to get through the whole thing.

Another problem in many video presentations today is in their excessive use of music.

The first banned item that is presented by this bobbleheader is regarding a candy item that has a toy inside. He comments that it’s rediculous to ban such a thing as no child would choke on it. I find this part of the script to be too opinionated even though I’m being very opinionated about his opinions here.

Government bodies that handle such bans have likely ran into some serious complaints of choking, with accompanied reports from doctors or hospital emergency rooms that present the hazard.

Reporting in a video “documentary” about such things should really at it’s best include research on that side of the matter. This is completely ignored by this bobblehead.

The next item he critiques that is banned is a food that has animal parts including lungs ground up and served inside an animal’s intestine. It is called Haggis.

So by about 4 minutes in when he got to sassafrass oil, listening to the exact same tone of speech which was fast and animated, I really had difficulty continuing as a part of this filing techinique critique process.

The other element of this film technique I would call FTS. That’s an acronym for Fast Talking Salesman. Fast talking salesmen are more interested in keeping your attention than actually presenting the facts.

This is not a channel I would subscribe to!

I never really want to ever see a moving image presented of his again.

Image of animal character bobbleheads By Intothewoods29 [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons