Quote:
Originally Posted by cmdahler
I understand what you're saying, but you have to remember in all this that there is a business aspect to it. These guys don't write this stuff just because they like doing it; they're in it to make a living, too. The Ben thing we're discussing is a perfect example of them leaving their options open for the future: your interpretation of the event is certainly the way it was intended to be interpreted on an artistic basis within the original story-arc, but it has the added benefit to the business-side of movie and TV production of providing a perfect tie-in to a future storyline if they should ever decide to return to the concept.
|
I do agree with what you are saying here. I guess I'm objecting more to the "
blatant teaser" than to the "just in case" part of your earlier comment.
Maybe it's more wishful thinking on my part.
I don't mind when stories are left open to interpretation rather than having every little detail explained, as long as the main concerns (in this case, the character storylines) are resolved.
Often, in my limited experience, cashing in on an subject's popularity either falls short of expectations or tarnishes the original to such an extent that I no longer enjoy the original. Not all of the time, but enough that I tend to stay away from continuations of stories that I think have been concluded.
I'm concerned that over explanation will take away from the small mysteries that are still present in the story and will interfere with my rewatching of the series. I like having the option of making up my own interpretations of the events that aren't specifically defined and fixed.