You, Mark, I and others won't accept Ahearn's attempt to overturn that core paradigm by excessive pruning of it. This behavior of ours, our conservatism when it comes to the core, is not because of inherent commercialism in movies or Ahearn's granulation, and it's not because all art tends to become commercial. Both Mark and you are making unneeded explanations of why you do not accept Ahearn.
What's going on is that we are PROTECTING THE CORE PARADIGM. That's exactly what goes on in any science when basic paradigms are challenged too severely. The function of the core, as I explained in another post here today, but which has gone unnoticed and unrecognized (perhaps not accepted), is to provide a focal point for subsequent research. The core is fruitful, even when it is not entirely correct. It's fruitful when people form a community of inquiry around it and find topics to look at stemming from that common understanding. These subsequent topics provide more granulation and may challenge or disagree with the core, but people tend to protect it and be reluctant to overturn it for small or frivolous or unimportant or extreme positions. Ahearne is trying to be radical, but we refuse to accept it. It takes a new theory to beat an old theory, and Ahearne hasn't presented such a theory. And the new theory or core paradigm to be accepted must provide the paths to future fruitful research that aids the main goal: greater understanding. The latter comes about through development of new facts and new interpretations of old facts.