It's been a running joke with my mom of her talking about how much she hated growing up watching 70s movies. Basically every 70s movie, it's the most depressing ending possible, and then bam, the TV goes to the star spangled banner and then static, left alone to feel miserable.
Now I don't get depressed with movies so I've always half joked with her about it because I enjoy watching old movies that she couldn't be paid to watch, including depressing ones. And while the 70s is a decade I haven't seen as many movies proportionally to the 80s and 90s, I've seen enough to see ones with that standard 1970s ending where you think things will be ok and then the main character dies or whatever.
See this Family Guy clip for reference: Hilarious clip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyGPlo8Rc5E
But let me tell you, I have seen a lot of movies, a lot of horror movies, weird cult movies, and everything in between, and Magic (1978) starring Anthony Hopkins is by far the most depressing movie I ever seen. I actually felt the way my mom describes when it was over, because I was too tired to watch anything else so I was just left with my thoughts.
It's not the ending, if it was the ending, it would be among all the other 70s movies, it's just the concept and how it's done in general. I don't want to say too much, that's why I'm being vague, but watch it and tell me I'm wrong. It's got to be one of the most tragic feeling films I've seen.
If you've seen the movie, let me know if you agree or if I was just being influenced by unknown depressing feelings, because it could be that, but I feel like my sense that this was beyond the normal level of depressing was genuine and not my mood.
So in conclusion the movie is a 10/10. If your Prozac is working too well, it's a good way to bring you back down a bit.
In all seriousness I did enjoy the movie, just wanted to hammer on the main point.
Martin's works got popular as a reaction to lesser writers aping the very thing you are trying to hype.
What good is ennobling, of goodness or any positivity when its unearned? Subversion and "anyone can die randomly" resonates when you have become used to "and everyone lived happily ever after, all the good guys survived against the odds." Its speaking to you because the standard has become inorganic and lacks any inspiration.
Tolkien's work is so beautiful because it didn't shy away from consequences while still being simple "goodness triumphs over evil." The Shire doesn't remain safe, Frodo is mangled and broken even in his victory, and if that Fellowship didn't have courage enough to fight back despite some of them being completely ill prepared to do so the whole world would have been such.
But for quite a while in our media's history, instead it was "power of friendship/love will win!" and much other generic feel goodery without much loss that makes you take for granted so much of what makes those stories beautiful in the first place. You could draw no wonder and inspiration from it because it felt fake, characters were guaranteed to win or succeed and even their "consequences" felt tacked on instead of true.
Martin's work is trash, but its trash that got big because it was a symptom of our media's greater rot. Which was poor writers thinking "happy ending" or "good message" was enough to justify showing their low skilled nonsense to the masses.