Am I the only one who thinks that Owen...

But when I read this theory, then all I can think is what the hell did LMI supposedly do that was different? Especially when a theory like this was already suggested at the end of LTROI. That it was all just the dying dreams of Oskar. The fact that this theory is now being discussed here in LMI makes me wonder exactly what the hell was the difference with this movie that LMI anyways?

But when I read this theory, then all I can think is what the hell did LMI supposedly do that was different? Especially when a theory like this was already suggested at the end of LTROI. That it was all just the dying dreams of Oskar. The fact that this theory is now being discussed here in LMI makes me wonder exactly what the hell was the difference with this movie anyways?

I don't feel like I am being attacked. So, no worries there. I appreciate any input or discussion on my theory. I didn't realize it wasn't original but am not surprised it isn't. I hate that I caused all this angst between people who discuss this movie regularly.
I did watch LTROI years and years ago. I dare say close to when it came out. I pirated it online at the behest of some message board I frequented at the time. It may have been an EQ or WoW site. I can't remember. Anyways, I adored the movie but hadn't watched it since. I know there has to be subtle and blatant differences to the two films. I know the gender ambiguity in the first and little to no mention in the remake is a big one. So, the tone of the films may have been the reason why I came to a different conclusion than I did the first time. It may have just been that I forgot I thought the main character was dead at the end. Before I could post it or discuss it with anyone. So, it's untelling.
I am not intentionally copying anyone's theory. I do apologize for spouting it as my own. It was something I came to on my own as far as I know. Even if the concept is something that is common this day and age. For people to imagine the movie's ending as something beyond the straightforward. Ever since Fight Club I have waited for some twist or surprise to the story. Which I highly enjoy and really appreciate when a storytelling can do something like that well. So, I don't know if he's dead at the bottom of a pool or taking his vampire girlfriend around the country to drink her fill. I do like that I don't know, it makes the movie better to me.

The greatest story every told in six words. "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn." - Ernest Hemingway

Just to be clear, no matter the original's intent or story, an adaptation does not have to follow the same events or ending. My interpretation, no matter its validity, may be the very thing the filmmaker wanted the audience to take away from the film.

If you have an ambiguous moment where a character could have died. Anything that happens after that neither proves nor disproves his death. Just because he walks out, and she leaves one alive, doesn't mean he survived the bullies. It could just mean that he imagined himself doing that and the bully left alive was someone he had sympathy for. Someone he knew wouldn't be there if he weren't forced.

Don't get me wrong. You are likely correct. The character survives and they both live happily ever after, until Owen/Oskar's eventual death from age or while obtaining blood. I just like to think, just as most people who watch a lot of films do, that a story doesn't have "an" ending. Stories don't live in the author's mind. They exist inside the viewer or reader's mind. They are given up once they leave the author's pen and are published.

They may have had an intended meaning or ending but they most certainly don't have a single interpretation. Just like your old English teacher told you that certain stories had symbolisms and layers of meaning that weren't intended by the author. These movies mean what the audience feels they mean.

The author of "Fahrenheit 451", Ray Bradbury, was debated about the meaning of his book during a college class he was visiting. The student looked at him and said, "You're wrong!" when the author said his book wasn't about censorship. The amazing thing is, the student was right, and the author wrong. Sure, he might have intended the story to be a cut and dried narrative about (and I quote from another source) "the role of the mass media and its effect on the populace, in particular television and how it makes people less able to digest more complex forms of media, like books."

So, the problem is, that what the author intended the story to be, isn't what the reader will get out of it. Certain aspects of the story will gain meaning and resonate in ways that can't be foreseen. Sometimes the political and global events that happen at the same time as the story's release will cause it to have an effect that outrages or outlives the material's expectations. So, please, feel free to consider me incorrect, but don't ever tell someone they are wrong for viewing something in a different way than you did.

The greatest story every told in six words. "For Sale: Baby Shoes, Never Worn." - Ernest Hemingway

> Kody 14

Well, 13.5 when the thing was filmed. Often, you can take a year off the film release date for when things were actually filmed.

Yes, the chemistry was great. If the youngsters were one year older, it would have changed the entire complexion of the underlying devotion from one of childhood to adolescent.

http://www.catconsulting.ca/themanyfacesofabby/index.htm

OMG, you can say this for practically anything. Maybe in Die Hard, John MacClane died too and did the same thing where he envisioned himself as a hero who saves the day and all turns out well. Sometimes, most of the time,especially in movies, what you see is what you get unless otherwise left to interpretation or there are subtle hints or clues.