.................................
To leave Commie, hyper to
http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html
.................................
> >coming back the NEXT time this writer/filmmaker/studio makes a movie...
> So
> >it is not artistic/noble to NOT end happily, but it can be a commercial
> ploy
> >to DO end with a happy end...
>
> You're simplifying things.
>
> You're saying that _only_ sad endings are artistic and noble, and
> that _all_ happy endings are always commercial crap.
>
> _That's_ pure crap. The ending of the story just summarizes the
> thesis you're saying with your story. If you're trying to say that -
> hmmmm - that small people can win a battle against evil - ehm -
> multinational companies (hehe... assuming this was possible in the
> first place... ;), it's rather hard to state that kind of thing with
> a sad ending...
>
While risking a flame war: I think that you have NOT read my post
accurately enough (or I did not make my point clear enough).
My point is: there IS a convention that commerical films are to end
happily
Other point is: lots of art[y] movies tend to have LESS than happy
endings.
Some peoples intentions are pure and simple, some are not.
I was just describing a basic mechanism, not eternal truth or
anything...
> The guy in the book is called "stalker", because originally, in the
> book, the story was located in Canada, if I remember this
> correctly... There's some unintended comicalness in some details of
> the book. Although the characters live in North America, they sure
> _act_ like Russians... ;)
>
Aaaaaaaaah! Story seemed really eastern to me [quite surreal]
diskonext
