aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
One of the appeals of movies and TV is that we get to pretend, on some level at least, that what we are watching is real. We get swept up in the story, we care about the characters and what happens to them, we become engaged and forget about our own mediocre lives for a moment.
It is therefore quite annoying when the writers and/or producers of a show inject a plot contrivance that interrupts the natural flow of the narrative in order to force the outcome they want. I'm sure you're familiar with them:
1. Why do the bad guys wait for Dirty Harry to deliver one of his classic one-liners before they even TRY to shoot him?
2. Why don't the Jedi Knights use their magic powers CONSISTENTLY?
3. Why does the super-villain launch into a monologue just when he has the superhero on the ropes, giving him a chance to slip away?
4. Why does the evil genius, in the words of Dr. Evil, place the hero in an easily escapable situation, then just assume everything will turn out all right?
You may be able to get away with a subtle plot contrivance once in a while, but the viewer will feel cheated if it is used again and again. The audience just doesn't buy it, because things like that don't really happen in real life. It's an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
Which brings me to the 9/11 conspiracy theories...
It seems to me that virtually all of the arguments brought forth by truthers in the quest to prove that 9/11 was an inside job bear more than a passing resemblance to plot contrivances. They disrupt the natural narrative of 9/11 by injecting clumsy speculation designed to do one thing: Tie the terrorist attacks to the US government, or its cronies within US borders.
Lets look at those plot contrivances again, compared with some of the classic 9/11 conspiracy theories:
Q: Why do the bad guys not shoot Dirty Harry?
A: So he can look cool, deliver his one-liner, and vanquish the bad guy without so much as mussing his hair. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: Why would Larry Silverstein secretly destroy his own heavily-damaged building on 9/11 in the wake of the terrorist attacks?
A: So he can be tied to the attacks. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
Q: Why do Jedi Knights only use their magic powers when it's convenient to the plot?
A: So that an artificial sense of tension can be created, heightening the drama. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: How can the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people be rejected in favor of a slightly different story from four eyewitnesses?
A: The story of the four eyewitnesses is somewhat more compatible with a certain conspiracy theory. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
Q: Why does the super-villain "monologue" and let the hero get away?
A: The hero ALWAYS wins in the end. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: Why is it considered impossible for a building to collapse after being hit by an airliner and catching fire, when we all saw it happen on 9/11?
A: Use of demolition charges proves complicity from the inside. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
...and so on, and so on.
Truthers, I'd like to hear your take on this idea. Unfortunately, I have most of you on ignore. However, perhaps those of you who have had little of substance to contribute up to this point will be willing to put yourself out there and explain why it is necessary to defend such clumsy theories that seem to serve no purpose other than supporting your agenda. Perhaps this can lead to constructive discussion.
...And maybe the next James Bond movie won't have him miraculously escaping from a volcano just before it explodes. I'm ever hopeful!
It is therefore quite annoying when the writers and/or producers of a show inject a plot contrivance that interrupts the natural flow of the narrative in order to force the outcome they want. I'm sure you're familiar with them:
1. Why do the bad guys wait for Dirty Harry to deliver one of his classic one-liners before they even TRY to shoot him?
2. Why don't the Jedi Knights use their magic powers CONSISTENTLY?
3. Why does the super-villain launch into a monologue just when he has the superhero on the ropes, giving him a chance to slip away?
4. Why does the evil genius, in the words of Dr. Evil, place the hero in an easily escapable situation, then just assume everything will turn out all right?
You may be able to get away with a subtle plot contrivance once in a while, but the viewer will feel cheated if it is used again and again. The audience just doesn't buy it, because things like that don't really happen in real life. It's an insult to the intelligence of the audience.
Which brings me to the 9/11 conspiracy theories...
It seems to me that virtually all of the arguments brought forth by truthers in the quest to prove that 9/11 was an inside job bear more than a passing resemblance to plot contrivances. They disrupt the natural narrative of 9/11 by injecting clumsy speculation designed to do one thing: Tie the terrorist attacks to the US government, or its cronies within US borders.
Lets look at those plot contrivances again, compared with some of the classic 9/11 conspiracy theories:
Q: Why do the bad guys not shoot Dirty Harry?
A: So he can look cool, deliver his one-liner, and vanquish the bad guy without so much as mussing his hair. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: Why would Larry Silverstein secretly destroy his own heavily-damaged building on 9/11 in the wake of the terrorist attacks?
A: So he can be tied to the attacks. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
Q: Why do Jedi Knights only use their magic powers when it's convenient to the plot?
A: So that an artificial sense of tension can be created, heightening the drama. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: How can the eyewitness testimony of hundreds of people be rejected in favor of a slightly different story from four eyewitnesses?
A: The story of the four eyewitnesses is somewhat more compatible with a certain conspiracy theory. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
Q: Why does the super-villain "monologue" and let the hero get away?
A: The hero ALWAYS wins in the end. It's the outcome the creators want.
Q: Why is it considered impossible for a building to collapse after being hit by an airliner and catching fire, when we all saw it happen on 9/11?
A: Use of demolition charges proves complicity from the inside. It's the outcome the conspiracy theorists want.
...and so on, and so on.
Truthers, I'd like to hear your take on this idea. Unfortunately, I have most of you on ignore. However, perhaps those of you who have had little of substance to contribute up to this point will be willing to put yourself out there and explain why it is necessary to defend such clumsy theories that seem to serve no purpose other than supporting your agenda. Perhaps this can lead to constructive discussion.
...And maybe the next James Bond movie won't have him miraculously escaping from a volcano just before it explodes. I'm ever hopeful!
