|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Captain Jack wrote:
> I've always been a big fan of the "seven basic plots" idea. I note, for the
> record, that this is neither an absolute nor an accepted theory in all
> circles, but I think the concept has merit.
You should note that the original formulation was that there were only seven
basic plots that work well in a theater play.
Movies? Books? Lots more than seven. Stories you can tell with live actors
on a stage? OK, maybe 7 counts, if you lump all of comedy as one plot and
all of tragedy as another.
To some extent, there's only so much you can do in a movie, too, as movies
are very expensive to make and you still can't learn stuff except by seeing
it happen. Altho "flashbacks" and voice-over narration can help, you still
can't get as much of that in as you can in a novel.
> There is some amazingly odd and hard to validate science going on in this
> movie.
It wasn't really a science fiction movie, unlike Armaggedon was. Hence,
since the science wasn't really driving the movie per se, the fact that the
science was bogus didn't hurt the story.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
I get "focus follows gaze"?
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |