I guess like Donald said, "Each writer has their own genre." After reading the 3 screenplays, I noticed each person voice. Something their each good at and are comfortable in. If you were to read other screenplays by the same author, it would be easy to distinguish whose is whose. Even if they all wrote about the same thing, you could still decipher between them.

With Adaptation, the way they wrote was more character based. Lots and lots of dialogue, important character development. The movie was about the characters, not about the situation, or the outcome. For me, watching the characters interact was more amusing then the overall story.
With the Apartment, it was more dedicated to the situations we all encounter. The characters were basic people, nothing unique about the, but, the situation they were in made them interesting. It made them interesting to watch and see how they achieve their goal. Alone, they are bland and boring, but, together is their strength.
A Boys Life was an outcome story for me. The audience was focused on what was going to happen. The ending would leave them with all the answers, nothing to question or really think about. For me, this was the most basic arc there is in story telling. Of course the idea is great, but, it follows the preset guidelines.

Overall, all 3 are awesome. In Story, Mckee mentions Classic Design, that of which A Boys life applys to. So, if I were to put these movies in their -plots, I would say A Boys Life is the Classical Archplot, The Apartment is the Miniplot and Adaptation is the Anitplot.

DC.

1. According to Mckee, could Adaptation fit the Anitplot criteria?

2. Was there any subtext in Adaptation?