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