This is topic What does "No Plot" mean? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=026326

---

Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
 
I hear this accusation a lot. When someone doesn't like a movie, one of the first things they say about it is that it has "no plot". Whether or not I agree with their assessment of the movie's quality, this particular phrase always confuses me.

What exactly does it mean? That the movie lacked a series of events portrayed in a chronological sequence showing cause and effect? This may be true of some movies, but certainly none of the ones that most often receive the insult.

I guess what it really means is, "I was bored by the story, but I don't know how to articulate my feelings, so I'll just use a phrase I've heard before that seems to convey the proper level of contempt."

Well, it definitely communicates contempt, but when I'm reading someone's movie review, I'm usually looking for something descriptive that will give me a hint as to whether or not I'll enjoy the movie. Meaningless clichés like "No Plot" don't help at all.

[/earlymorningrant]

Anyway, just had to get that off my chest at 3:50 in the morning. Time to go to sleep

But are there any other comments you hear a lot that have become so devoid of meaning that it's useless to even say them anymore? Any other cliché-related pet peeves?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Yeah-- 'blind faith,' being used as a tool to portray the believing as sheep.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I'm not sure that "blind faith" OR "no plot" are really meaningless cliches. While you might not agree with the situations to which they're applied, they DO have a generally recognized meaning and can carry a point.

For example, many movies ARE basically "plotless," particularly heavy character studies in which essentially nothing happens, and conflict is established and then eliminated over the series of small vignettes. You could, in theory, sum up such a movie as "Billy goes to the store, buys some milk, talks to some people, and goes to bed." This does NOT necessarily mean that it's a bad movie, but it DOES mean that people who watch movies in order to see something happen (as opposed to people who watch movies to get inside the head of a character) will be disgruntled.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I think a similar criticism is that a move lacks "character development." Not that this isn't a valid complaint; it's just that 80% of the time when people use it, it's used inappropriately.
When Episode I came out, I don't know how many people said they were disappointed in the lack of character development for Darth Maul. Dude - he's a two-dimensional villain. People with scary painted faces don't have soliloquies in adventure films. A touching moment where Darth Maul wrestles with his convictions while sitting in his boudoir may have been interesting, but...
OK, no.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
ROTFL Hobbes may have lost his funny but Annie still has hers

AJ
 

---

Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
 
Agreed.

*high-fives Annie*
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Annie, perhaps the people complaining about the lack of Darth Maul's character development were specifically disappointed by the fact that he was a completely two-dimensional villain.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I often use the phrase "no plot" when what I mean to say is: "The plot was utterly inane and predictable and that's 2 hours of my life that i'm never going to get back."

Case in point: Tomb Raider. Though I did win some cool stuff in the costume contest.
 

---

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
 
No plot is an exageration meaning someone didn't like the plot or that it was weak or whatever.
 

---

Posted by policyvote (Member # 3044) on :
 
Your assessment ("I was bored by the story") is close to the truth for most people. Obviously, for a film to truly lack a plot would make it either a very dull documentary or an incomprehensible "art" piece. But when people say "no plot" they usually tend to mean movies heavy on concept and dialogue but light on action. Or, maybe it's not a lack of action as much as a lack of constant tension.

NOTE: I saw The Village this weekend and have been involved in many 'M. Night' dicussions since, so forgive me my current fixation.

Look at The Sixth Sense--talky, yes. Action, not so much. But there's never a wasted moment; it's like every frame makes you beg for the next. Compare that to Unbreakable or Signs; where you might be begging for the next frame, but only because it seems to be taking its sweet time in coming. It's not just a highbrow/lowbrow thing; no one would accuse 12 Monkeys of having no plot--and Anchorman certainly avoids winded exposition, but also would never be accused of having much of a plot.

It basically just boils down to timing, action, and tension . . . and by extension, further down to boredom.

So, yeah. You're right.

Peace
policy

[ August 02, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: policyvote ]
 

---

Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
 
When I say, "this movie has a weak plot" I usually mean that it fails to have much increase in tension, passion, or intrigue.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
I think if I actually watched a movie with no plot, I would demand my money back. Most movies have plots; some just have very poorly developed ones.

My problem with a movie is usually that the plot is so stock that the movie might as well have not been made. If I can guess what's going to happen after the first 5 minutes, I get really fidgety unless I'm in it purely for the eye candy.

I've heard that stock plots are often used because they are tried and true. Film is so expensive that the director doesn't want to waste it on a new formula that might not work. Maybe that's just an urban legend. The reality is more likely that the director has no imagination.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
afr said,

quote:

---

think if I actually watched a movie with no plot, I would demand my money back. Most movies have plots; some just have very poorly developed ones.

---

quote:

---

What does "No Plot" mean?

---

My husband tells me that men sometimes describe a woman as having a "great body but no face" or was it the other way around? I have never heard anyone say it, perhaps men would never say that in mixed company, it is an ugly thing to say, IMO, but it seems to be a similar expression. I mean, really. If a woman had no face or no body, she probably wouldn't be alive, now, would she?
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
Ah beverly you have illustrated the point perfectly. People using the word "no" as a substitute for "less than appealing".
 

---

Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
 
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a fine example of "No Plot", IMHO.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I'm not sure I understand what a "plot hole" is. I take it that it isn't where you put a casket.
 

---

Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
 
A "plot hole", according to my understanding, is an apparent logical incongruity in the plot that isn't somehow accounted for. Basically, anywhere you can say, "Hey wait a minute, that couldn't happen because SUCH-AND-SUCH!" Usually, if you sit for a second, you can come up with an explanation, but even so, you're still a bit annoyed at the movie for making you go to the effort.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Sounds like there is a fine line between "plot hole" and "texture".
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
A plot hole is an internal inconsistency, or a deviation from reality in a film that purports to be realistic, or characters overlooking obvious solutions to their problems in favor of the convoluted solutions required to bring certain scenes to pass or to make certain symbolic or thematic gestures. Case in point, for me, is Signs, a movie I really liked because I strongly empathized with its themes, but which had numerous such holes. (Now I will need to break out the DVD and watch it again! ) I got the same feeling from Ocean's Eleven and some South American paramilitary movie Bob and I saw last summer whose name has escaped me . . . maybe John Travolta was in it? As you can see, I think that a movie can be redeemed despite plot holes, but that it often is not.
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I tend to think of a movie with No Plot as a movie without a whole lot of substance, just eye candy. Lost in Space...Charlie's Angels...etc
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
BASIC
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
Either I don't understand the meaning of plot, or that's a strange thing to call a plot hole. I thought the plot was the structure of events in the story. I guess there isn't really a literary term for the internal consistency of the universe in which a story occurs. It really only applies to speculative fiction, since literary fiction is always exempt from internal consistency.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Thanks, Mack.

pooka, I disagree. I think early in a story, you set an expectation in the reader's mind of what kind of story this is. If you contradict facts stated earlier in the movie, you break that expectation. I think much of my explanation was clearly not rooted in speculative fiction.

quote:

---

a deviation from reality in a film that purports to be realistic, or characters overlooking obvious solutions to their problems in favor of the convoluted solutions required to bring certain scenes to pass or to make certain symbolic or thematic gestures.

---

Ocean's Eleven and BASIC aren't speculative fiction.

[ August 02, 2004, 09:48 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
I loved both Ocean's Eleven and BASIC...and Signs as well. I'd watch it tonight if it didn't tweak me out STILL.

Screw the plot holes. They managed to suspend my disbelief anyway.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
When I say a story has no plot, I mean that it does not have a meaninful plot. There is no reason for it. When I set it down I think "why the hell did I read this story"

I reviewed a short story that has this problem last week. It was simply a bunch of people wondering around interacting. There was no meat to the story...and if I was reading it for pleasure...rather than to critique it, I would have sat it down.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
A plot hole isn't necessarily "why didn't the x-wings move in behind Vader and blow his armored Sith backside to pieces?" but rather an obviously overlooked element of the story the writers didn't tie up.

Example - DS9 episode, O'Brian gets replaced by a clone that is almost indistinguishable from the original. They never, ever, stop to explain how they know which is the real O'Brian and which isn't.

Kinda like...wait...how did Van Helsing manage to pull the Holy Grail out of his pocket? You mean, it's been in his pocket the whole time? Exsqueeze me?

-Trevor

Edit: People do stupid things all the time - in movies and in real life. And from our perspective at the time, it's not always stupid but rather a poor choice that we might have done differently if we were arm-chair quarterbacking someone else's decisions.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I agree with Trevor about plot holes. Another example, from The Matrix:

Why do they keep humans around? They say it is for their energy. But that can't be. It will always take more engergy to create the food to feed the humans than you could ever get out of them. Why not use the energy you had in the first place?

But let's assume that the 1st law of thermodynamics isn't true anymore, and they can get more energy out organic bodies than they put into them. Why humans? These humans sure seem to be giving them lots of problems. Why don't they make a much simpler version of the matrix for dogs or rats or elephants? If they are just using humans for their bodies and have to keep the matrix up and working in order to occupy their brains, wouldn't it be easier to find animals that don't have as developed brains but will still put out the BTUs they need for energy?
 

---

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
 
(aside) I think it's "She's like butter. She's got a great body, but-ter face...!"

I can usually enjoy a movie with a bare bones plot, but if it manages to unsuspend my disbelief, it's done for. Usually, I can adjust it so I can suspend it to different levels, but sometimes movies trick me. Like Van Helsing. And Catwoman. >:.

[ August 03, 2004, 02:01 AM: Message edited by: Ryuko ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Ya know - if I found Halle Berry even remotely attractive, I'd hide my self-respect at the door and slink in.

But I don't, so it kinda rules out the movie for me.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
 
I confess I've used the phrase 'no plot', though in my case it's always hyperbole. I'm perfectly aware that the movie actually does have a plot. It's just that the plot failed to engage me. Consider the phrase a shorthand for 'no plot worth caring about'. In my case, it's not that I don't know how to articulate my feelings, so much as that I don't consider the movie to be worthy of the effort. But I'm not a professional reviewer. If I were writing a real review, I would certainly avoid vague expressions like 'no plot' and work to construct a real case for why I didn't like the movie. But in casual conversations with my friends, I don't usually feel the need.

As for "other cliché-related pet peeves", the one that really soggies my Cap'n Crunch is when people say they don't like a genre of music because "it all sounds the same". Of course it all sounds the same to you if you don't like it. It's the same genre of music, so there are a lot of basic similarities the songs in the genre will share. That's what makes it a part of this genre instead of that genre.

But because you don't enjoy the music enough to seek a lot of examples of it, you don't get enough exposure to notice the variation that exists within the genre. You don't truly get a representative sample because you don't seek it out. So you don't learn about the variation, and all that remains is the similarities that define the genre itself. Hence, it all sounds the same to you.

In other words, it's not the cause of your not liking the genre, it's an effect of it. Think of your favorite genre of music. To someone who hates it, it will all sound the same. The reason it doesn't all sound the same to you is because you like the genre enough to listen to it a lot, so you get to hear all the variation. But they don't, so two songs that you can distinguish instantly, from the very first chord, they will listen to and say, "It all sounds the same to me."
 

---