I wonder if this conscious-unconscious goal setting also is needed in family films where children carry on the lead characters. I think of Home Alone, Spy Kids, Nancy Drew, and many others. I haven't analyzed these films yet, but when I do I will look for the need and the want in it.

I'm also reminded of another common trope, this one often used in action films, "sex at 60" (referring to page 60 back when scripts were usually around 120 pages). This is where the action hero who has been protecting the female lead shtups her at the midpoint, raising the stakes for keeping her alive. I think this one also ties into your conscious/unconscious goal observation. Often these action heroes have a more domestic unconscious goal and part of their character struggle is learning to balance their wild side that makes them effective heroes and their tamed side that gives them something to live for. I'm vaguely remembering a John Wayne movie -- I think it was "The Quiet Man" with Maureen O'Hara -- where the difficulty of a gunman settling down was a major theme.

This article brings to mind Marcel Duchamp's musings about intended and unintended meaning of art. Duchamp challenged our notions of significance by altering the context in which we see so-called ordinary objects, thus challenging the observer's perceptual framework. Duchamp's works may or may not please us, but they compel our attention with their mischievous effrontery. If a writer attempts to consciously 'imprint' their characters and story with 'meaning', is there a risk of becoming too mechanical? So, in applying the valuable lessons of structure discussed here, should writers also allow themselves to poke the embers with a stick just to add something unexpected to the process?