But how many different ways can you tell a story about, say, abduction? There can be hundreds of different reasons why someone was abducted, and the same number of ways to try to rescue someone who was abducted, and those can make the story more interesting, but the key is development of characters that you care about within that story of abduction.

I think this is why Hollywood is focusing more and more on special effect movies. The plots are pretty much the same, so they try to cover for that with bigger special effects to make it more visually interesting.

What's that saying? "You can put lipstick on a pig..."
:D

Exactly. Most movies have multiple plots tied together. It's not like there's only 36 kinds of movies - there are near-infinite combinations of the 36 building blocks.

We're seeing Cars tonight. I'm excited. :)

Abduction was one of the 36 was was least astract. I have to agree with Alex; most on the list are too abstract to provide any meaning whatsoever to the thesis that the number of possible plots is maddeningly finite.

It's difficult for me, then, to understand the general lack of creativity from movie makers. I don't even see that many and the plot devices used and stories being told all seem too familiar.

I would suppose that Polti is more about plot devices than about plots themselves. But one would think that these plot devices could be used in some unique ways.

Also I don't think you'd find many critics complaining simply because a movie was made that centered around "abduction."

If a movie was made in which a child is abducted for ransom and a parent decides that the only hope is to defy the abductors by screwing with their plans, since they probably plan to kill the child no matter what, then the movie better have something unique to offer that wasn't provided by Ransom.

I think for most critics it is ok to cover the same ground but the filmmaker has to provide a reason why, given the choice between A and the new B, you should choose B. Simply being more recent is not enough reason.

scaeagles, do you try to find creative movies or do you generally end up at whatever the top three movies at the box office are? Tentpole movies aren't trying to be creative. Creativity is risky and people don't like to spend $120 million on risk.

I see creative original movies all the time but they're not so often playing at the 10-screen multiplex.

Honestly, I rarely make going to see a movie a priority, with the exception of kid friendly fare (such as Over the Hedge or Cars, which we will be seeing tomorrow).

I will go see the "big" ones, but recently that only applies to X-3, and I only went to that because it was late, I was bored, and I couldn't sleep. I never saw King Kong, haven't seen The Da Vinci Code, and before X-3 and Over the Hedge, I think the only other movies I've seen this year are Flight 93 and MI:III. I don't know of any other movie I'm planning on seeing this summer.

So, I guess I do only see the movies that are the top at the box office, but that isn't by design. I suppose if I knew of the less publicized films and had any inkling to go see them, I would. But like I said, I don't see very many.

This reminds me of You, Me, and Everyone We Know. Very creative and original. Nothing much happens plot wise, but it's a great film.
.

Pffffft - 36 Plots - there really is but one - Conflict, followed by conflict resolution, with of course the alternate unresolved resolution conclusion.