The End of Reality (Good Riddance!)

[Bek359]

Realism? Not important to me. I can take it or leave it. Suspension of disbelief? Very important. Keep your rules consistent. Things that happen should be justifiable within the story. I don't like plot twists that come out of nowhere and make absolutely no sense, which is one of the reasons why I didn't like MW2 very much. It was "realistic", but my suspension of disbelief was punctured at so many points that it just became ridiculous, and I didn't like it.

 

[JaredXE]

Agreed Bob, movies have too much of a 'realistic' base, and it just detracts from my enjoy ment. The number one movie I point to that is Troy. Hollywood actually made a movie about greek mythology.....with no gods. Not a one. Achilles isn't the greatest warrior because his skin is unpierceable, no, it's just skill. Paris and Helen become utter douches because it's no longer Aphrodite's love spell that makes them fall for each other. Nor do we see Ares cry out in pain from getting cut on the battlefield, or Poseidon cursing Odysseus at the end.

Stupid realism.

Same realism that's messing with videogames, like Bionic Commando. Oh wait, that was also shitty controls

 

[IHaveNoCoolness]

I'll agree that I'm excited to see more and more of the fantastical elements of storytelling creeping into cinema, but I'd hardly say that this is a brand new resurgence.... I'd say there is nothing grounded in realtiy in Harry Potter, and that movie came out close to a decade ago.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The late, great Blake Snyder said that you're only allowed one piece of "magic" per film.

Any more than that and the audience loses connection to the film.

This was shown in Spiderman as how we could accept the radioactive spiderbite, but the explosion that created Green Goblin and Doc Ock? That was far-fetched.

The problem being, of course, that it was deemed to be more "realistic" for Peter Parker to produce web-fluid from his wrists, rather than him being a world-class chemist as well.

UH-UH. That was being stupid. See also Indiana Jones hiding in a fridge.

As long as the magic is there, we can believe it. Place Indiana Jones in a ancient Mayan food storage container, and not a problem with believing that. Drop Aliens into the plot and everyone throws up their popcorn in disgust.

What we need is realism within the world. If Stormtroopers can't shoot straight, then so be it; but ALL Stormtroopers need to be lousy then. This is something that the soaps/sitcoms ignore to their peril.

House M.D. survives as a doctor, despite the fact he should be lynched, because he's a Magnificent Bastard [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard]. (Tropes Warning) If you have him save a kitten, it NEEDS to be so that Cuddy can bend over. To do any differently would cause the old "Han Shot First" problem.

War of the Worlds is about Aliens, Transformers is about Giant Robots, The Day The Earth Stood Still is about Benevolent Alien Dictatorships - trying to force the human condition into these stories may give it opening night flashes, but ultimately it will collapse into ridicule.

Show the original of these three (or Clash of the Titans) and you'll get people watching today. Show the updates and people will want a sandwich.

What's "Real" is defined by the movie and the genre. And in that sense, the only movies that truly draw people in, time and time again, are those that are real to their own realism. Stick in a real life event and you crash and burn like The Lovely Bones.

Drawing on another Hero, Bill Hicks said that some people thought that the lesbian angle/leg-crossing in Basic Instinct wasn't necessary. To most of it's fans, it's essential.

Propane tanks explode when you shoot them, Dynamite blows out jail walls, The Nazis were all evil. It's the Movies.

If you want the real truth, watch Mythbusters.

 

[Kollega]

Moviebob is right (again), screw realism. Is there anything more that should be said?

Wait, i also have to quote one post here and agree with it, too.

I agree with you that "realism" is overrated, even in the very very few cases in which it is actually present (as opposed to the patronizing faux-realism favored by the Grim & Gritty crowd, which is my main problem with the grayish-brown trend in shooters), however, an Avengers movie that crosses over three film franchises with different rules gives me pause.

See, I can suspend my disbelief no problem. I'm a huge fan of Doctor Who, anime, Nintendo games, Star Trek, all that stuff. However: I'm worried about INTERNAL consistency. I don't mind "The Rules" being different, but I don't like seeing them changed whenever it's convenient. As much as I loved Buffy the Vampire Slayer (and believe me, I did, and I still do), there were times when I wanted to scream, "WILL YOU KEEP TRACK OF YOUR FUCKING RULES ALREADY?"

This. Oh-so-very much. I detest everything realistic in fiction, and quadruply detest everything "realistic" (as in, brownish and GRIMDARK). Only thing i'd like to see is internal consistency (or if author decides so, complete lack of it - "shit happens, don't think too much" sort of thing) being maintained. With everything else, writers are able - and indeed, supposed to - go completely nuts. We're not coming in the movie theatres for more of reality, we're coming there to escape reality. To taste something different (and most times, better).

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

This reminds me of a section in Austin Grossman's book "Soon I Will Be Invincible!". It revolves around a supervillain named Doctor Impossible and a cyborg named Fatale who has just joined up with the big superhero league of the day. One of the scenes is a confrontation between Doctor Impossible, who's a intelligent villain in the vein of Doctor Doom or Lex Luthor, and Mister Mystic, the resident magician of the aforementioned superteam. Impossible has this internal monologue about their two differing styles:

I don't like magic. I think I've said that. it goes against the whole premise of my-well, my whole thing. That we live in an ordered universe. That the stars and planets swing around each other according to laws. if Mister Mystic thinks he lives in a different world to that one I have to prove that he's wrong and I'm right.

There does always seem to be that clash of "No, we can't have that here, it doesn't fit in that genre" whis is especially galling when you've got people running around in spandex throwing lasers or cars at each other

 

[Valdez Leel]

Amen, Bob. Amen. A film should be judged on its merits - not on its choice in aesthetics. The "Realism" which these people idolise is just as much a construct as the fantastic workings of any soft sci-fi epic, and their irrational fetishism is equal to that of any of the geeks they show contempt for - perhaps greater. Because while a "geek" such as myself maybe able to recognise the virtues of say a film like Festen or Saturday Night, Sunday Morning these snobs will never stoop to admitting that they may have enjoyed The Dark Knight or Hero.

Its a kind of elitism Ive only really encountered in the world of film. I did a degree in Creative Writing and one of the modules I took in the first year was scriptwriting. I have a big appetite for the absurd, the surreal and the bizarre and I put a lot of that into the stuff I write - the only time I ever encountered a problem with this was in that god-damn scriptwriting module.

The module booklet even read, "No guns, zombies, ninjas or any other Hollywood preoccupations. Only draw inspiration from your own life experience otherwise your scripts will be cliche ridden and terrible."

What. The. Hell.

I was tempted to write a kitchen sink drama about a family of Zombies working in a munitions factory just to piss them off.

Cant a fantastic story about dinosaurs playing kazoos on Venus also draw inspiration from the writers troubled relationship with their father and be a subtle and insightful critique of capitalism?

Cant a "realistic" story all about the writers tedious job at a factory be nothing more than an awkward and messy rehash of crappy indie movies the writers seen?

If you turned to any well read literature nut and told him that Franz Kafkas The Metamorphosis was an invalid work because, "men dont just turn into giant cockroaches in real life" he would *****-slap you into next week.

All fictions have their own internal logic that is invented by the writer and as long as he doesnt just go and randomly throw that logic out of the window when he feels like it you cant really cry foul.

Complaining about dinosaurs in a dinosaur movie is moronic.

 

[geizr]

This article seems to make the question of realism a universal either-or proposition, and I don't quite agree with that stance. In my opinion, context, intent, and premise are key factors in determining the fantasy to reality ratio that is acceptable. There are movies(typically any fantasy film) for which it is so obvious that reality must be thrown away that I have no expectations whatsoever regarding any realism. My only requirement in such a case is that the film establish a self-consistent fantasy reality and not violate that fantasy, i.e. don't make your own rules and then break them.

But, then there are other films for which reality must be front-and-center and not deviated. One may have situations with extremely low probability of occurrence or even seemingly improbable events(for example, a movie about someone who actually does find that their body has quantum tunneled to the other side of the galaxy); however, these are not necessarily violations of reality as they simply require more knowledge and calculation of the statistical flexibility of the universe to see that such events can, indeed, occur. In fact, with a little digging into some of the deeper areas of quantum mechanics, statistical physics, and relativity, one can find all kinds of weird things that do actually happen, but for the lay-person, many such things would seem unrealistic only because they lack the knowledge and experience of such things(i.e. it's something that's non-intuitive). Also, remember, in many ways, today's science is yesterday's magic. This would not just apply to sci-fi, fantasy, and action films; it could apply to other film genres.

In my opinion, to really be able to meld known reality with notions of fantasy really requires a broad knowledge-base and keen understanding of concepts. This may be where film-makers are failing; they just don't understand enough themselves to create a convincing conjecture of possibilities spawning from our current reality. As a result, a more knowledgeable audience has difficulty suspending disbelief, and this may be from where some of Movie Bob's quandary is coming. (Of course, I admit, I could just be totally off-base on this prospect.)


For games, I'm generally more strict about not wanting reality shoved in all the time as a means of making a game "good" or "immersive". My position with games is usually if I want reality, I wake-up in the morning, not pay some game developer $50-60 to make a failed attempt at recreating it. However, this is because my own personal intent with games is purely to escape this reality for a time and try some other reality. For purposes of immersion, I only require that the game establish a self-consistent set of rules and not violate those rules.

 

[RJ Dalton]

I give my thumbs up to MovieBob on several points here, but I want to remark on one specifically: the one where he said that realism is an aesthetic choice. There are times when realism is good and enjoyable (I loved "Touch of Evil" and "Citizen Kane," both realistic films). It's not what you have, it's what you do with it.
On the other hand, I would agree with people who say that Bond shouldn't have laser wielding cyborgs or battles in space. The style of James Bond when he was at his best was a sort of 1920's playboy attitude. The gadgets and stunts were fun, but they were represented in a particular way, with a very stylized motif (at least in the really good ones, by which I mean the Sean Connery films, minus Diamonds Are Forever). The lack of that stylization is specifically what I find wrong with the last four bond films. The last two Bond films went so far into realism that it completely disregarded the ballroom-dance music flavor that made Bond what it was (and Quantum of Solace fucked the series royally by disregarding every other element that made Bond what it was, essentially turning our buddy James into that guy from Die Hard (I didn't despise Die Hard, but Die Hard is NOT James Bond)).
So, yeah, realism or fantasy are just aesthetic choices. As a writer, I sometimes mix the two in the same story, writing a gritty-realistic style of story in a world that has wizards and elves. It's not which side of the coin you pick, it's how you present them.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

While I would totally love the description that you apply in your final paragraph, I find myself saying "Absolutely, but not always." There is still something to be said for that which specializes, knows exactly what it is, and does that to a golden-roasted perfection. And then, of course, there is the matter of Believable magic. Telekinesis, Pyrokinesis, Telepathy, and many other thousands of combinations of Latin prefixes and suffixes that we name as superpowers, these are for the most part believable, but only to a certain extent. Lifting a pencil or a cup? Sure. Lifting a bus? Well, obviously, they're very powerful and have focused their power through elaborate, probably painful dedication and practice. Moving a whole building? The mind then puts up a flash, saying "Whoa whoa whoa, hold up!", and makes you not want to see it as magic as much as it could be seen as. And then there's proportion and combination. I'm reminded of a scene in the third X-men movie, where Magneto is gathering his army in a church, and finds some little squawky ***** who is both a speedster and a telepath--to which I similarly call bullshit, since those are two very different powers. Heroes had that, but they had a decent explanation for it--Peter was a mimic, Sylar could make his own brain perform the functions that his victims could perform after examining how they used theirs. Both of those are acceptable explanations for how they could combine their powers into never-before seen new abilities--but they often couldn't do two at once.

Do I want to see Captain America fight aliens? Absolutely. Do I want to see the Norse God of Thunder get his ass kicked God of War Style? You bet. How about Tony Stark and his suit pitting science against magic? I'm right there with you. In this regard, I say--fuck reality, give me my willing suspension of disbelief. But in saying that, I say as conditional aside--whatever arises has to be somewhat believable. Aliens? Fine. Magic? Fine. Aliens with magic against Humans without who use science instead? I want a giant heaping helping. Put bounds in place, and make sure everything is kept within fair conception.

 

[maninahat]

On the other hand, I would agree with people who say that Bond shouldn't have laser wielding cyborgs or battles in space. The style of James Bond when he was at his best was a sort of 1920's playboy attitude. The gadgets and stunts were fun, but they were represented in a particular way, with a very stylized motif (at least in the really good ones, by which I mean the Sean Connery films, minus Diamonds Are Forever). The lack of that stylization is specifically what I find wrong with the last four bond films. The last two Bond films went so far into realism that it completely disregarded the ballroom-dance music flavor that made Bond what it was (and Quantum of Solace fucked the series royally by disregarding every other element that made Bond what it was, essentially turning our buddy James into that guy from Die Hard (I didn't despise Die Hard, but Die Hard is NOT James Bond)).
So, yeah, realism or fantasy are just aesthetic choices. As a writer, I sometimes mix the two in the same story, writing a gritty-realistic style of story in a world that has wizards and elves. It's not which side of the coin you pick, it's how you present them.

There was once a serious Bond in the 70s who conformed to our contemporary "realism and grit" angle - yet it was done in such an awesome way no one complained. It was called Day of the Jackal.

Alright yes, it wasn't actually a Bond film. But the main character is basically James Bond right out of the novels. That is what makes it awesome; Day of the Jackal shows how such an impossibly sauve and badass, yet cold and brutal character could possibly live in a realistic environment - The thrill was that a larger-than-life fictional character could go out and murder a real-life political leader using only what he could get his hands on in the real world. Or at least a plausably real world anyway. Jackal Is basically what the modern Bond movies should have aspired to be like.

 

[RJ Dalton]

But it

There was once a serious Bond in the 70s who conformed to our contemporary "realism and grit" angle - yet it was done in such an awesome way no one complained. It was called Day of the Jackal.

Alright yes, it wasn't actually a Bond film. But the main character is basically James Bond right out of the novels. That is what makes it awesome; Day of the Jackal shows how such an impossibly sauve and badass, yet cold and brutal character could possibly live in a realistic environment - The thrill was that a larger-than-life fictional character could go out and murder a real-life political leader using only what he could get his hands on in the real world. Or at least a plausably real world anyway. Jackal Is basically what the modern Bond movies should have aspired to be like.

But see, it wasn't Bond. I don't mind taking an idea or a character concept and toying around with it in different settings. But if you're going to call it Bond, do what makes Bond Bond. If you're going to do something completely different, call it something else. Just trying to capitalize on a franchise only screws it up.
Honestly, though, I think Bond should be put to bed. There's really nothing more you can do with the idea that hasn't already been done and still remain faithful to what Bond is. The franchise has exhausted itself. My only real disappointment is that we never got a satisfying conclusion to the SPECTRE sub-plot running through most of the Sean Connery films (Diamonds Are Forever was NOT satisfying, even if it was a conclusion).

 

[wildcard9]

The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

 

[eels05]

The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

That Charger is my dream car.One day I WILL have one.

But yeah even in movies like Mad Max 1 and 2,all those stunts were real.It definatley gives you a feel that CGI and greenscreen lacks.

 

[theSovietConnection]

The 70's had their day.
Being born in 73 I've only just got into the old realism gerne Bob was refering to.'Bullit' and 'Point Blank' being some I've recently discovered.
Growing up around that period I think you'll find most kids my age took to Star Wars and the increase in Sci Fi and Fantasy like Ducks to water.

Yeah, but Bullit was especially noteworthy because it gave us one of the greatest chase scenes ever: Steve McQueen barreling down the hills of San Fran in a Green '68 Mustang chasing a tuxedo black Charger. The kicker? It was done LIVE! The production team didn't have the money to put up a barricade so they said "Fuck it!" and did it in full traffic!

I'd rather have that then the over-stylized bullshit that the Fast and the Furious series could ever give us.

I think a better example would be the original Italian Job versus the new remake. The original to me is infinitely better because of the stunts actually being real.

Anyways, I do agree with Bob, realism has it's place, but it doesn't need to be shoehorned in. I like to watch movies to escape reality, not be encased by it.

 

[tkioz]

Well it depends on realism, mostly the only realism I want is characters acting real. How often have we seen the guy, the star, who we've been told is incredibly smart, experienced, the best in the world over look an option that popped into the minds 99% of the audience .5 seconds after the problem was explained simply because it was needed for the plot, from that point on the super smart hero is considered special needs by the audience.

I want villains who are real people, not cartoons, not sadistic Hitler wannabes.

Realism in characters makes movies so much more enjoyable.

But I totally agree it's perfectly fine to hand wave some things and just expect the audience to accept it, like the force in Star Wars, they didn't need to say midiwhatevers gave the force, they could of said "we don't know what the force is, we have theories but we don't know, we do know that people with access it to it have these things in their blood" and that would of been perfect, the science freaks could of said "ahh that makes sense" and the hippies could of nodded sagely that their magic was safe and moved on.

Let the audience imagination work for you, you don't have to explain everything, just give a little detail and let them fill in the blanks depending on what suits them, some people might just think "magic stone" others would come up with "science thing Y".

Actually that's one thing that really shits me about Sci-Fi is that every character knows exactly how stuff works, yes most of us have a basic understanding of how a nuke works, but ask us to explain and we'd just shrug and go "bad stuff with explosives around it makes big bang", when they ask the marine or fighter pilot how their tech works, they always know who in actual fact they'd be more like to say "fucked if I know, it just does"

Anyway I'm moving off topic, the only realism I want to see in movies is realistic characters that act like real people in that situation.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

The End of Reality (Good Riddance!)

Movie critics' desire for realism is, well, unrealistic.

Read Full Article

That was a great article. I can especially relate to the part where you said, "Dr. Doom menaces The Fantastic Four as a corporate executive rather than as castle-dwelling ruler of Transylvaniaesque fictional country, while planet-devouring Galactus had to be changed from a godlike giant into, er... the weather."

I hate it when directors, script-writers, and all the other people that can possibly change something in a movie, take out or change something that was in the original piece.

My first example would be the latest Beowulf movie that came out in 2007. It is on my list of movies I wish I could get my money back from. Instead of slaying Grendel's Mother like in the original epic poem, Beowulf has a baby with her which turns out to be the dragon. Seriously, that is messed up. I have watched two other movie adaptions of Beowulf other than that one and that one ranks on the bottom, under the Sci-Fi channel original version.

My second example would be the movie Eragon. It was so horrible, I actually believe that the people that made it, made all the changes they did compared to the book, only because they took sick pleasure out of making fans of the books mad. If anybody here read the books before the movie, they know what I mean and most likely went into a rage after they watched it. When I did, I came very close to jumping over the ticket counter and taking my money back. They made so many changes to the story with that movie, that they can't make a sequel to continue with the story from the next book. One of the changes they made in that movie eliminates half the main story from the second book.(If you read the books, you know what I mean. They literally took one event from the book and made the outcome the exact opposite.)
I actually would like someone to make the whole series into movies, but they will have to remake the first movie first, and stick with the full story from the book.

 

[wadark]

I for one, have never understood some people's obsession with realism. Movies, videogames, whatever. We live reality every day....it doesn't make for a very good movie, ACTION movie anyway.

Why do some people strive so hard for realism in the mediums that were basically born out of the idea of suspending reality for the audience/players?

 

[MB202]

I read up to the point where you talked about "realistic action movies", and I was alike "HOLY SHIT!" because today, my friend and I were just talking about action scenes in movies, and how "realistic" action is not nearly as entertaining as the incredibly awesome action scenes you see in anime, comic books, video games, etc. It's just so... Eerie...

 

[s_glasgow99]

Bob,

Love the article, escapism is the reason I watch movies and play games, if I wanted to experience the real world I'd take a walk downtown.

One question though, you said that the joining continuities of multiple series had not been done on film yet outside of comedies. Which comedies are you referring to? The only ones that come to mind are the American Pie sequels, which simply reference back to previous entries, and some of shows from television; the Happy Days spinoffs, Cheers and Frasier, Grey's Anatomy and Private Practice. But these all become separate from an original setting and time. It there a series out there that has joined several other non related series together? (outside of the cartoon afterschool special of the eighties bringing Scooby Doo toe to toe with the TNMT and the Duck Tales gang to keep kids from doing drugs)

Scott Glasgow