Johnny Novgorod said:
Why are you quoting The Matrix?
I'm quoting the Matrix because the question asked in that movie is valid for the purposes of this discussion.
You are complaining about how this movie series isn't "realistic", but that depends largely on the definition of what is 'real" within the context of that universe.
Within the Matrix, you can be hit, shot, beaten, stabbed, etc, and those injuries are interpreted by your mind and body as "real" because your mind and body are operating within the confines of that universe and its logic. This is why Morpheus asserts that their world has "rules" that can be bent or broken, allowing people to do things which do not fit our definition of "real", yet are perfectly logical within the confines of the Matrix because the Matrix operates under different assumptions.
Superhero stories operate within a different realm of existence, with their own rules and assumptions. They are not bound by ours, and complaining about how they do not conform to ours is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding about how "fantasy" works.
So yes, realism is an aesthetical convention, but every genre follows its own. Which is why it is realistic for Superman to fly, but if John McClane were to suddenly acquire the power of flight in Die Hard 6, that would be unrealistic (as per convention of the action macho genre). You realize nothing is stopping a producer from saying "I want Willis to fly in the next one", but nobody's going to take it believable because syntactically, semantically, generically, conventionally, realistically, that is a stretch.
....yes, that's what I said.
Different universes have different rules. You're complaining about how superhero movies aren't conforming to a real world standard of "realism", which is (as I pointed out) stupid.
And speaking of stretches! Talking raccoons. There is undoubtedly a way of making a film about a talking raccoon (I'm sure we've got plenty of those), but throwing it into a superhero movie that shares the same canon as the current cinematic MARVEL universe is a bit of a stretch. Again, I'm sure those wacky producers are drooling at the monetary potential of next generation's Ewoks. It is doable. It's just stretching the genre a bit too much. Well, a lot.
Except that you didn't actually explain WHY it's a stretch. You just keep asserting that it is, without giving a real reason WHY.
I should point out that there are any number of movies which are not superhero movies that feature talking animals, and many people would consider those movies to be more grounded in "realism" (in the sense that you're using it) than any superhero movie. In terms of scale, "talking animals" is far, far lower on the scale of "could believe it" than many of the accepted constructs of a superhero world.
So if we're basing ourselves out of a world which accepts the existence of hyper-intelligent AI, advanced alien cultures, non-existent science and technology, and even deities....how exactly is the existence of talking animals a total impossibility within those confines? Especially considering that we have literally accepted the notion that gods exist in this universe....what stops a god from pointing at someone's cat and giving it the capacity to speak? Gods are kinda known to have powers well beyond those of any mortal being, and it's not by any means unusual to read stories about a god giving speech to animals.
This is akin to playing a D&D game in a high-magic setting and then complaining that it makes no sense for Bags of Holding to exist. You're complaining about something relatively small while still accepting the reality of all the other much more fantastical things around you.
