Well, the three-act structure basically just describes conflicts. There is a pre-conflict phase (Act 1), an event at the end of Act 1 that sparks a full-on confrontation for the duration of Act 2, and another event at the end of Act 2 that shifts the conflict into a climax in Act 3, wherein the conflict is resolved. You even see it in non-human animals, and not just in violent conflicts. For example, if you consider mammalian sex, there is foreplay (Act 1), penetration (first transition), intercourse (Act 2), first urethra contraction (second transition), and ejaculation (Act 3). You don't need language for that story to play out; you just need language to communicate it.
I think you've fallen victim to an anthropomorphic fallacy here. I see what you're trying to do; as someone who owns a lot of animals I spend a good amount of time observing their behavior patterns. But one could just as easily describe them with a 4 act structure or in terms of stimulus-response behavior.
I guess my point is that while we need language to specify what a 3-act structure is, the underlying behavior from which the pattern is an abstraction does not need language.
If you have a theory that can equally explain Hollywood screenwriting, two dogs fucking, and a cat catching a mouse, you have a theory that tries to explain too much and will necessarily end up not actually saying anything. The meaning of a theory is in what possibilities it rules out.
I don't think we really disagree. A 3-act structure captures so many situations that it has no bearing on the quality or originality of a story. It's just the simplest definition of a story possible: there is a beginning, a middle, and an ending.
Okay then yeah, I agree. I once had a discussion with someone who claimed Aliens could be analyzed in terms of the three act structure, and I didn't disagree - but it turned out we disagreed on where the three acts actually were, which in my opinion negated the claim that such analysis had any predictive power.
But the original article is talking about a formula that is apparently much more prescriptive than the three act structure.
For it to really be "3 acts", you should be able to stop watching at any of the act ends, and feel like the story had closure, for at least some notable elements.
