Why don't screenwriters understand that when the hero dies, the movie's over?

Alfred Hitchcock proved that wrong in Psycho when he killed off the heroine Janet Leigh in the first 1/3 of the movie. It was a shock to the audience as she had top billing but it didn't end the interest in the movie.

OR...to be really literal...in the opening of Sunset Boulevard, the hero (William Holden) is found dead in the swimming pool. The movie goes from there..as a flashback of course.

in Ghost, the hero Patrick Swayze died in the first 10 minutes of the film...the film didn't end there..but continued with him as a spirit (same for the old Topper films).

So I understand your point but there are many devices in films which get around a strict interpretation of your statement.

Well those are two terrific movies that had terrific endings. The films continued on after a main characters death with purpose, so obviously the movies were not over yet.

Both of those films were highly acclaimed stories before they were movies. The movies kept the same storyline and both films' screenwriters won Academy Awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, so I think they knew what they were doing.

And were Jack Twist and Llewelyn Moss really the heroes of their respective films? Ennis Del Mar and Ed Tom Bell were more the main focus of the films.

Just because a main character dies in the middle of or near the end of a film doesnt mean the film should be over. Lots of things can happen and be covered after their deaths.

Well most of the time when a hero dies its the climax meaning that you still have to show the falling action before the movie is over.........I mean lets say and this is just a random scenario.....That there are two people being held captive by the bad guy the hero dies by the evil guy, but the girl is still alive. Wouldn't you want to know what happened????