Re: [HoE] Western vs. Post Apocalypse was Book of the Dead: Necrotech?

[George Dorn <toadpooka@usa.net>]

I'd say westerns (good ones at least) are pretty fairly divided between the two endings, while
post-apocalypse (again, good ones) are almost all the way you described.  I've always favored the
Westerns where the hero is left almost exactly where he began.  He goes off to wander the West
again, and presumably ends up in the middle of another big adventure later on.  This is why Westerns
made for good serials and dime novels.  The main character always had a reason to keep adventuring.
Think Mad Max as an example of Post-Apocalypse: at the end of Mad Max, Max is much worse off than he
was at the start (actually, it was the best tragic character Gibson ever played, Hamlet included). 
In The Road Warrior, he's a bit more human at the end.  Then, in Beyond Thunderdome, Max actually
becomes human again, to the point of sacrificing himself for the good of Walker's Children.  By the
end of the Trilogy, Max is still wandering, but he's a person again.
Isn't that just the cutest thing?

Allan Seyberth wrote:
> 
> A fundamental difference between Westerns and Post-apocalypse is the ending.
> 
> Westerns usually have a happy ending - the hero prospers and the future
> looks good.
> 
> Post-apocalypse usually leaves the hero in the same position as he was at
> the start of the movie - perhaps there is a vague feeling that "that thing
> called civilization" has just taken a step back from the brink

-- 
Love,
Joseph "Plan?  There ain't no Plan!" Malik