So the reason I was being so rigid is because I figure that a broken storyform is still objective, right? So it seems like we should still be able to figure out what is there so we can see what isn’t there. What I can see now, thanks to your steadfastness @mlucas, @Lakis, and @Hunter, is that without at least a more complete storyform, even if it is objective, a missing piece is all it takes to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint where the conflict comes from. Like with Incredibles 2, if you have what looks like Physics conflict in service of a Psychology throughline (or the other way around) an MC character without a clear change can really keep you from pinpointing a solid example for a storyform.
When I first saw the movie, I remember thinking that Vi telling Bob she wasn’t going to go anywhere was the solution to the OS and then I was waiting to see where Bob would change. I’ll concede that Vi making that statement could be a Psychology Solution-just as her not going anywhere could be a physics solution-but we really need Bob (or Helen) to change to prove that solution.
Now I know everyone’s thinking “that’s not a new revelation, Greg. It’s been pointed out many times before on this very forum that a broken storyform can keep you from locking anything in.” But i bring it up to let M, L, and H know what I was doing as well as to say that knowing something is very different from experiencing something. Trying to do something and seeing why it can’t be done is a very helpful experience. So thanks for your part in that, guys.
I also want to say that between this movie and Infinity War, I’m also get a much better feel for the difference between a movie that is really good (to me, I guess, some of you others don’t seem to’ve thought this one was that good) and a movie that says something. Again, it’s cool to know it, but much different to experience it.