FILM CRIT HULK

is someone, an anonymous film critic, who I ended up reading today, through following links from the DrudgeReport2018 to article x, then y, then this from FILMCRITHULK who uses all caps which may be annoying but his message isn't.  On why 3 Act Structure is a myth:

CHAPTER 25 - THE MYTH OF THE 3 ACT STRUCTUREHULK HEARS IT ALL THE TIME WHEN PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT MOVIES: “IT’S THE PROBLEMS IN THE FILM’S SECOND ACT!”
ALL… THE FUCKING… TIME.
NOW, HULK UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE COMPLAINERS MEAN BY THE STATEMENT. IT IS USUALLY USED TO IMPLY WHEN A FILM IS TREADING WATER, OR LOSING TRACK OF CHARACTERS, OR RUNNING OUT OF STEAM, OR CRAMMING STUFF IN, OR WHATEVER STORY-FAULT YOU CAN THINK OF. OH, HULK GETS HOW THE COMMENT IS INTENDED. BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS GENERIC “SECOND ACT” DESIGNATION IS THAT IT CAN IMPLY A PROBLEM WITH VIRTUALLY ANYTHING IN THE MIDDLE PART OF STORYTELLING. MEANING IT IS A BEYOND VAGUE WAY TO TALK ABOUT STORY STRUCTURE.
SO WHAT CREATES SUCH WISHY-WASHY STORYTELLING? AND THE EVEN WISHY-WASHIER WAY OF EXPLAINING IT?
IT IS BECAUSE OF THE EVER-POPULAR NOTION OF THE 3 ACT STRUCTURE, WHICH HULK PERSONALLY FINDS TO BE THE MOST ABOMINABLE WAY TO BOTH EXPLAIN AND INSTRUCT STORYTELLING. SO FALSE IN WHAT IT DESCRIBES, SO FALSE IN WHAT IT ACHIEVES, THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PHRASE IS USED TO NEAR UBIQUITY, AND EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF WRITERS USING THE 3 ACT MODEL AS THEIR GUIDE AT THIS VERY MOMENT…
HULK ARGUES IT IS STILL, ESSENTIALLY, A MYTH.