Quote:
Originally Posted by octothorp
I disagree 100% that there are only so many story lines, and any other writer I've discussed that theory with agrees that it's bull. It's a theory always espoused by a) high-school english teachers attempting to overly simplify things for their students, or b) people defending really predictable and derivative books or movies.
And engaging? Take the story, take away all of the effects and all of the art direction, and would that really, honestly engage you? Is it really anything more than saturday-morning cartoons have to offer? The story basically serves to move the movie along from setpiece to setpiece and incredible setting to incredible setting, and it's successful only to the extent that it doesn't get in the way of those things, which are the focus of this movie. Can you remember (without looking it up) any of the lines of the film, verbatim? I can remember only one of them.
I liked the movie. I was completely entertained by it. But if you look at it objectively and separate out the acting, writing, art direction, and effects, I don't see how you can't conclude that some thing were tremendously well done and others were just the minimum that the movie needed to get by.
|
You couldn't be more wrong. It's studied extensively and my understanding is the jury is not out on this - there are a finite amount of stories and they have all been told. I remember studying this specific topic in an English theory class at the UC in the late 90s on my way to my English degree.
There are infinite ways to tell stories, however, which may be what you're talking about.