Books/movies with a weak plot?

[Night Elf]

Dd13 has an assignment to write about a movie or book that had a weak plot. Even DH and I are stumped. We can't think of anything. Really.

 

I told her we're probably looking for a storyline that has boring characters and/or a boring conflict and/or an ending that didn't satisfy the conflict.

 

Do you know of any? My guess is that we haven't read or seen anything that might be suggested. :tongue_smilie:

[Twigs]

I'm almost afraid to say this, but I just finished reading this one, and my 1st thought was "I'll never get that time back".

 

 

 

Emma

[Ginevra]

How about the movie "The Last Mimsy"? Heaven help me - that was the most idiotic movie on which I ever wasted an evening! :banghead:

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Dd13 has an assignment to write about a movie or book that had a weak plot. Even DH and I are stumped. We can't think of anything. Really.

 

I told her we're probably looking for a storyline that has boring characters and/or a boring conflict and/or an ending that didn't satisfy the conflict.

 

Do you know of any? My guess is that we haven't read or seen anything that might be suggested. :tongue_smilie:

 

Star Wars 1-3 (Phantom Menace - Revenge of the Sith?) These are my fall back examples of how not to write suspenseful plot. Really, everyone knew Anakin would become Vader, so there was nothing of suspense there.

 

Pirates of the Caribean III would be another on my list. I could not wait for that movie to end.

[Aubrey]

Most recent example here--Summer Magic. It's an older movie...early 60s, I think.

 

But if you want a *list*, I'll call my mom & see what she's been watching lately. ;)

[Ginevra]

I'm almost afraid to say this, but I just finished reading this one, and my 1st thought was "I'll never get that time back".

 

 

 

Emma

:eek::svengo: Surely you jest! You burned my ears. I reject your assessment! :glare:

[Twigs]

Danielle,

 

Emma was the 1st Jane Austen book I've read & I would love to hear some insight from anyone who cares to share. I really didn't get the point of the novel. Thanks.

 

:eek::svengo: Surely you jest! You burned my ears. I reject your assessment! :glare:

[Rosie_0801]

The Great Gatsby?

 

 

Rosie

[Ginevra]

Danielle,

 

Emma was the 1st Jane Austen book I've read & I would love to hear some insight from anyone who cares to share. I really didn't get the point of the novel. Thanks.

 

I hope you know I'm being playful. :001_smile: I'm a huge Austen fan and Emma is such a good one! The way Austen establishes and develops character - it's shows such insight into human nature. Emma was wealthy and did not "need" to marry, was busy trying to match-make everybody else, overestimated her own ability to find the correct match for everybody and was totally blind to her own deep feelings of attachment to Knightly. Her arrogant put-down of the poor girl who is a bore (can't think of her name just now) results in the first moment it dawns on her that other people are not just there for her entertainment; that they have value and worth on their own.

 

I could go on...;)

[stripe]

Anything with Jennifer Aniston in it? Er. Many young adult novels? Lots of conflict, no characters.

 

I recently read The Oracle of Stamboul: A Novel, and you'll notice while many people enjoyed it, the book just sort of....stops. I thought it needed a second half.

[SunD]

The entire Twilight series?

[elegantlion]

The entire Twilight series?

 

:iagree:

 

Bella: pout

Edward: stalker

Jacob: panting

 

sprinkle a fight between vampires at the end: plot

[FlockOfSillies]

Love Story? Gahhhhh.

[Ginevra]

:iagree:

 

Bella: pout

Edward: stalker

Jacob: panting

 

sprinkle a fight between vampires at the end: plot

 

:lol: Too true!

 

Although that guy who plays Jacob in the movies....mmmmm! :drool5:

[Word Nerd]

There are countless examples in the action movie genre of films that go overboard on action and special effects but skimp on plot and characterization. (For one example, watch this Onion interview with the 5-year-old screenwriter of the latest Fast and Furious movie here.:D) To me, "action-packed" means "plot-deficient" most of the time.

[nmoira]

Have you seen Kevin Smith's summation of The Lord of the Rings? I'm in a library without headphones and so don't know which video to link. If no one beats me to out, I'll post one when I get home.

 

ETA: You'd best google this one for yourself. :) I sometimes forget just how nsfw Kevin Smith is.

Edited April 30, 2011 by nmoira

[LidiyaDawn]

 

Push - both dd14 and I were quite disappointed with the mess they made out of this. Such potential there and they totally buggered it up! :glare:

[Twigs]

Danielle,

 

I hope you know I'm being playful. :001_smile: I'm a huge Austen fan and Emma is such a good one! The way Austen establishes and develops character - it's shows such insight into human nature.

 

 

I actually could see how good Austen was with the characters (I'm a science / math geek and slow to "get" literature); I just didn't see much plot in Emma. Thanks for the feedback.

[Night Elf]

Have you seen Kevin Smith's summation of The Lord of the Rings? I'm in a library without headphones and so don't know which video to link. If no one beats me to out, I'll post one when I get home.

 

:lol: We just finished this trilogy. Ds14 and I were so tired of it. Reading it over an entire school year was just not a good way to get through the book. But I must say that I laughed at this man's disappointment because I shared the exact thing. The last chapter in the book absolutely blew me away. I was so disappointed and angry. What a dumb way to end such a huge storyline. And before that, the last 6 chapters just kept going and going. It truly was like it had multiple endings. I just don't see the hoopla over this story.

 

Dd13 loved it though.

 

DH came up with an idea of a bad ending. Sherlock Holmes - A Scandal in Bohemia. When dd13 and I read it, we were terribly disappointed that someone bested Sherlock Holmes. That wasn't supposed to happen! The entire story was just so strange because the woman was always 2 steps ahead of him. Dd13 is thinking about using it for her assignment.

 

We haven't read any of the books or seen any of the movies mentioned in the thread. :tongue_smilie:

[Farrar]

I like Rosie's Great Gatsby suggestion because it's a novel with a weak plot but great writing, which makes for an interesting contrast. There are lots of bad movies and books that can be said to have a weak plot, but that's a good book with a weak plot.

 

I actually think Twilight's plot, while really trying, is the only thing selling the series. I mean, it's not the writing that people go back for and the characters are weak at best. :P

[elegantlion]

Push - both dd14 and I were quite disappointed with the mess they made out of this. Such potential there and they totally buggered it up! :glare:

 

I love this movie. It's such a mess, but it's just cool. We bought it, and watch it when it's on cable. It's one of those you can start watching at any point. And the decor! You'll never forget the wallpaper.

[blondeviolin]

The entire Twilight series?

 

:iagree:

[swimmermom3]

I don't know if this will work for a 13 yo, but ds and I just finished listening to a TC lecture about "The Yellow Wallpaper," by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Now I happen to like this short story, but the professor in the lecture brought up an interesting point about where the plot did not hold together and that by doing this, Gilman did not respect the integrity of her audience. The lectures are actually about writing. In your case, I don't know if a short story qualifies.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Dd13 has an assignment to write about a movie or book that had a weak plot. Even DH and I are stumped. We can't think of anything. Really.

 

I told her we're probably looking for a storyline that has boring characters and/or a boring conflict and/or an ending that didn't satisfy the conflict.

 

Do you know of any? My guess is that we haven't read or seen anything that might be suggested. :tongue_smilie:

 

The sci fi novel Neuromancer. At the end I was hard pressed to even identify the conflict.

[Denise in Florida]

Avatar - absolutely lame :glare:

Harry Potter 5 - Order of the Phoenix - I loved the other books, but I read this one once and never read it again. In my opinion, it was the weakest of the series.

[Jenny in Florida]

I hope you know I'm being playful. :001_smile: I'm a huge Austen fan and Emma is such a good one! The way Austen establishes and develops character - it's shows such insight into human nature. Emma was wealthy and did not "need" to marry, was busy trying to match-make everybody else, overestimated her own ability to find the correct match for everybody and was totally blind to her own deep feelings of attachment to Knightly. Her arrogant put-down of the poor girl who is a bore (can't think of her name just now) results in the first moment it dawns on her that other people are not just there for her entertainment; that they have value and worth on their own.

 

I could go on...;)

 

Plus, it's really, really funny.

[Jenny in Florida]

Danielle,

 

 

 

I actually could see how good Austen was with the characters (I'm a science / math geek and slow to "get" literature); I just didn't see much plot in Emma. Thanks for the feedback.

 

Hang on, not much plot?

 

What about all the twists and turns around who is actually right for whom? What will happen to Harriet? When will Emma realize she's not always right? Not even about her own feelings?

 

1. Harriet likes Mr. Martin, but Emma says he isn't good enough for her.

2. Emma schemes to get Harriet married off to Mr. Elton.

3. Mr. Elton rejects Harriet and marries someone else.

4. Emma has to help Harriet recover from Emma's matchmaking failure.

5. Emma flirts with Frank Churchill.

6. Emma decides Frank is a better bet for Harriet.

7. All the while, Emma treats Mr. Knightley as a friend/brother.

8. Frank saves Harriet from a band of gypsies.

9. Frank turns out to be secretly engaged to Jane, whom he surprises everyone by marrying as soon as his aunt dies.

10. Emma then believes that Harriet might be in love with Mr. Knightley and that he might return her affections.

11. Emma gets very jealous, which is her first clue that she is, in fact, in love with Mr. Knightley, herself.

12. Harriet decides she wants to marry Mr. Martin, after all.

13. Emma ends up marrying Mr. Knightley, whom most of us knew was the right man for her all along. (Didn't we?)

 

That's a pretty bare-bones outline.

 

Granted, there's not a lot of action, no car chases or explosions, but it seems like plenty of plot to me?

[Stacia]

I recently finished reading a book (that I quite enjoyed) which didn't have much of a plot: The Broom of the System by David Foster Wallace.

 

Perhaps if you can find the McGuffin, you'll have found the perfect book or movie for this paper? ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

But the end of LOTR is the whole point of the saga.

 

The hobbits could not have escaped notice forever, the war would have come to the shire sooner or later. They were saved by the fact that 4 particular hobbits expanded their horizons and went through some very difficult trials. But these same hobbits were forever looked upon with suspicion as wanderers or adventurers or something. They couldn't get their old lives back.

 

That is exactly how soldiers feel when they return from war. Tolkien was a soldier who fought a world war against an enemy intent on conquering the world.

[Lovedtodeath]

If you have a look at my Netflix Queue you'll find tons of them. :tongue_smilie:

 

How about Time Bandits? Napoleon Dynamite?

[Guest pajamas]

Jennifer Aniston was really good in Office Space, which is definitely not a meaningless movie. Ya I guess the plot is a little bit weak in that. But why attack the girl? I know she is quite beautiful, but that doesn't mean that everything she does is empty and meaningless. kind of a snooty comment

[Guest pajamas]

Tolkien fought against the Germans in WWI, he didn't fight in WWII. Therefore he was not fighting against someone intent on conquering the world. He was fighting in a sea of pawns which displaced the monarchical regimes in Turkey and Germany in favor of... uh... eventually Kemal Atapok (I did that on purpose--what does pok mean in Turkish) and ... uh... eventually Hitler, who... uh... grew intent to conquer the world.

[Mrs Mungo]

Tolkien fought against the Germans in WWI, he didn't fight in WWII.

 

I know he fought in WWI. The fact that Germany invaded France, Belgium and Luxembourg was....? What? A figment of imagination? A mass hallucination? I am going to have to disagree with this point, which is the only one that has to do with *Tolkien's* perspective.

 

I am not sure why you joined the board to troll a months-old thread?

[Slartibartfast]

Tolkien fought against the Germans in WWI, he didn't fight in WWII. Therefore he was not fighting against someone intent on conquering the world. He was fighting in a sea of pawns which displaced the monarchical regimes in Turkey and Germany in favor of... uh... eventually Kemal Atapok (I did that on purpose--what does pok mean in Turkish) and ... uh... eventually Hitler, who... uh... grew intent to conquer the world.

 

No one said WW2, they said "a world war."

 

 

An author cannot of course remain wholly unaffected by his experience, but the ways in which a story-germ uses the soil of experience are extremely complex, and attempts to define the process are at best guesses from evidence that is inadequate and ambiguous. ...... One has indeed personally to come under the shadow of war to feel fully its opression; but as the years go by it seems now often forgotten that to be caught in youth by 1914 was no less hideous an experience than to be involved in 1939 and the following years. By 1918 all but one of my close friends were dead.~~ Tolkien

Edited July 9, 2012 by Sis

[Mrs Mungo]

I think a book with a weak plot is Captains Courageous. The movie is quite different and has a more developed plot.

[Guest pajamas]

I didn't jump in to this forum to troll, however I don't really like the self-satisfied and conceited tone struck by some of its citizens. This forum just happened to come up when i googled plotless fiction and when i saw your post it bothered me that you described WWI in terms that really reflect WWII. WWI as I understand it was more of a desperate situation that spiraled out of control, and that many nations got stuck to, rather than the containment of a power-hungry dictator.

 

I don't buy that JRR Tolkien as a soldier represented the forces of good against the forces of evil as represented by the German soldiers in WWI. I mean I love JRR Tolkien as much as the next guy, but it's not so black and white. Anyway Germany definitely had no intention of beginning the war, rather it was Austria-Hungary which suckered the Germans into a war by getting a blank cheque guaranty of support and then badgering the Serbs into conflict in order to exact revenge for their killing of Franz Ferdinand. Once a war began then Russia promised to engage in the conflict. Germany was forced to engage their "The Schlieffen Plan," which called for invasions to forestall Russian attack. The invasion of France, a part of Shlieffen, required invasion of Belgium. Germany engaged in invasions for strategic reasons related to winning the conflict rather than pretensions of world domination.

 

All the major parties to The Great War wanted to avoid war, and yet they were all pulled in by circumstances which they did not entirely control.

 

Anyway I don't really know a lot about WWI. I do love LOTR, and it's pretty telling that anyone would describe LOTR as plotless since it has a plot that can carry a 10 year old kid through 1500 pages and three books.

 

Anyway have a nice life. And as for your peanut gallery friend, my point was not that WWI was rosy. My point was that WWI was not the containment of a hungry dictator.

 

I will say one thing about WWI--WWI in practical effect was about the imposition of new forms of government on two nations, and about the ending and division of the Ottoman Empire. And therefore in fact there were not such clear-cut good guys and bad guys as in WWII.

 

But I know it's easier to just call everyone you don't like (or everyone your nation has *ever* gone to war with) a fascist dictator bent on world domination. Who cares that it's not true.

[ocelotmom]

Push - both dd14 and I were quite disappointed with the mess they made out of this. Such potential there and they totally buggered it up! :glare:

 

Wow. I read the synopsis, and I cannot for the life of me remember if I saw it. Some details sound very familiar, others completely not.

[SunnyDays]

Well, that was weird. I wasn't on the board for the first round of this thread, and I didn't realize until Mrs. Mungo's comment that it was resurrected. We'll count this one under literature with a surprise ending. :D

 

So... Nightelf, how did your daughter's assignment go and what did she end up choosing? ;)

[Mrs Mungo]

I didn't jump in to this forum to troll, however I don't really like the self-satisfied and conceited tone struck by some of its citizens. This forum just happened to come up when i googled plotless fiction and when i saw your post it bothered me that you described WWI in terms that really reflect WWII. WWI as I understand it was more of a desperate situation that spiraled out of control, and that many nations got stuck to, rather than the containment of a power-hungry dictator.

 

Did I say anything about a dictator? I did not. You are creating straw men.

 

I don't buy that JRR Tolkien as a soldier represented the forces of good against the forces of evil as represented by the German soldiers in WWI.

 

Do you buy Camelot and its knights as a silly and frivolous, as portrayed by TH White? He was a pacifist who left England during WWI to avoid service. He has a different perspective of war than Tolkien. The *fact* of those differences heavily influenced their works. It is not about "buying" anything. It is about understanding an author's point of view and what a particular author wants you to understand or believe about the human condition.

 

The hobbits represent England, serve as Tolkien's Everyman and reflect himself. That is why the scouring of the Shire is so necessaryto the story as a whole, imo. The fact that it is *Gollum* who destroys the ring? That serves to remind us that even the most corrupt creature can serve the forces of good.

 

It is Tolken's *perspective* that matters here because that is what you need for literary interpretation. My opinion doesn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter, the historian's opinion doesn't matter. You can decide for yourself if you *agree* with his perspective, but you have yet to make an argument to the contradict whether this was his perspective. The "real" cause of WWI has nothing to do with any of that.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Mrs Mungo