The End of Reality (Good Riddance!)
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
I agree with it 90%. But I think it depends what the moviemaker is trying to sell you. If the story is total fiction or has any fantastic background from the start whats the point in looking for realism? If there are no superheroes in the real world so you cant expect any of the rest of the plot to try to be faithful to reality. If James Bond or Lara Croft do not exist, you cant expect much realism either. As long as within the plot it makes sense and is not ridiculous (and you like to see it there).
But if a director is proposing a story that either pretends to reproduce a past or present situation of reality, or predict one for the very near future (not counting exactly as sci-fi) you expect him to be accurate, on the concepts he work, on the events (specially historical ones), on the visual effects (Although in this last case you can lookover some flaws on details that are hard to reproduce). Thats were I demand the story to be realistic.
But if a director is proposing a story that either pretends to reproduce a past or present situation of reality, or predict one for the very near future (not counting exactly as sci-fi) you expect him to be accurate, on the concepts he work, on the events (specially historical ones), on the visual effects (Although in this last case you can lookover some flaws on details that are hard to reproduce). Thats were I demand the story to be realistic.
Bob, you're point is well taken. I do, however, have to argue on the position of realism.
What realism gives us who enjoy it is a level of earnestness and immersion that the unrealistic and fantastic can't give us. This is why the Bourne movies were so popular, as the self-parody stagnation of the Bond series had opened a void for another espionage thriller series to fill it in. Thus the Bourne series came into being. It gave us fast, fluid, bone-crushing action all realistic and all really kick-ass. We could belive this kind of thing could and would happen in today's post 9/11 government surveillance world. This provided us a level of immersion that few other films could.
I could go on about how my realism taste also spills over in sci-fi. Sci-fi likes to be realistic because it in effect is speculative fiction, and is thus making a bold prediction of the future. Cyberpunk was and still is wildly popular because that future wasn't too far off back in the 80's and now Japan is looking more and more like Gibson's Chiba City from Neuromancer.
Hell, this kind of thing spills over into anime as well. Cowboy Bebop, my favorite anime series of all-time, is grounded enough in reality so that my level of disbelief can take the absurdity of space bounty hunters. Ghost in the Shell is a straight-up love letter to Gibson and the rest of the Cyberpunk pioneers with the twist that the heroes are working for the man as opposed to against them. BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad is an earnest, true-to-life look at a wimpy kid with serious rock talents juggling the band and school with all the charm and relate-ability of The Wonder Years.
Heck even the Batman Animated series was a breath of fresh air as it didn't play down to us as kids: it was dramatic, gritty, and realistic. They knew we were smarter than other series let on and we loved it for it.
I guess my point is that it's all a matter of how willing our suspension of disbelief is. Some of us just have a lower tolerance than others, like me and my fellow realism lovers. You just have a greater tolerance for the absurd.
That' not to say that I'm completly all for total realism: there's a reason why I play Team Fortres 2 as opposed to Modern Warfare and it's ilk. Too much realism can suck the fun out of any good story. Give me a sniper who chucks pee in a jar any day: it's a lot more fun than waiting in not-Afghanistan for my health to regen while trading bullets with other brown and grey troops.
What realism gives us who enjoy it is a level of earnestness and immersion that the unrealistic and fantastic can't give us. This is why the Bourne movies were so popular, as the self-parody stagnation of the Bond series had opened a void for another espionage thriller series to fill it in. Thus the Bourne series came into being. It gave us fast, fluid, bone-crushing action all realistic and all really kick-ass. We could belive this kind of thing could and would happen in today's post 9/11 government surveillance world. This provided us a level of immersion that few other films could.
I could go on about how my realism taste also spills over in sci-fi. Sci-fi likes to be realistic because it in effect is speculative fiction, and is thus making a bold prediction of the future. Cyberpunk was and still is wildly popular because that future wasn't too far off back in the 80's and now Japan is looking more and more like Gibson's Chiba City from Neuromancer.
Hell, this kind of thing spills over into anime as well. Cowboy Bebop, my favorite anime series of all-time, is grounded enough in reality so that my level of disbelief can take the absurdity of space bounty hunters. Ghost in the Shell is a straight-up love letter to Gibson and the rest of the Cyberpunk pioneers with the twist that the heroes are working for the man as opposed to against them. BECK: Mongolian Chop Squad is an earnest, true-to-life look at a wimpy kid with serious rock talents juggling the band and school with all the charm and relate-ability of The Wonder Years.
Heck even the Batman Animated series was a breath of fresh air as it didn't play down to us as kids: it was dramatic, gritty, and realistic. They knew we were smarter than other series let on and we loved it for it.
I guess my point is that it's all a matter of how willing our suspension of disbelief is. Some of us just have a lower tolerance than others, like me and my fellow realism lovers. You just have a greater tolerance for the absurd.
That' not to say that I'm completly all for total realism: there's a reason why I play Team Fortres 2 as opposed to Modern Warfare and it's ilk. Too much realism can suck the fun out of any good story. Give me a sniper who chucks pee in a jar any day: it's a lot more fun than waiting in not-Afghanistan for my health to regen while trading bullets with other brown and grey troops.
Interesting article.I,for one,would like to know exactly what are these action movies that "lived by the realism creed".Action movies by their very nature are generally unrealistic.A hero(or heroes)taking on insurmountable odds and pulling off stunts that would kill most humans could hardly ever be considered realistic
Bring on the unreal I say
Bring on the unreal I say
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.
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.
Completely agree Bob.
Actually, games these days seem to be utterly fixated on "realism." And its stupid. Games try to be realistic and yet after taking a sniper rifle shot to the chest all you have to do is duck behind a wall for 5 seconds and BAM, fully healed. Realism =/= fun. For both games and movies. I'm not saying it should be gotten rid of completely, I have no problem having a few games and movies try to be realistic. After all, some people like that kind of stuff. But for everything to try and shoot towards "realism" is just pointless. Plus, its also boring. I don't want to be restricted to realism when playing a game. If I did I'd just live life.
Man, I miss the days of DOOM when you could carry 5 giant weapons and murder every demon from Hell on Mars...
Actually, games these days seem to be utterly fixated on "realism." And its stupid. Games try to be realistic and yet after taking a sniper rifle shot to the chest all you have to do is duck behind a wall for 5 seconds and BAM, fully healed. Realism =/= fun. For both games and movies. I'm not saying it should be gotten rid of completely, I have no problem having a few games and movies try to be realistic. After all, some people like that kind of stuff. But for everything to try and shoot towards "realism" is just pointless. Plus, its also boring. I don't want to be restricted to realism when playing a game. If I did I'd just live life.
Man, I miss the days of DOOM when you could carry 5 giant weapons and murder every demon from Hell on Mars...
I find I agree with this article ... to a point. The point of movies or indeed any storytelling medium, is to tell a story. It has to be done in such a way that it is convincing. Not necessarily convincing as in realistic - though there will always be people that refuse to enjoy anything that doesn't strictly adhere to realism - but rather it should be immersive. The story and the various components and devices that further the story such as action scenes and exposition should all cohere to make a single enjoyable movie. This is in comparison to some movies where the action sequences seem spliced in as an afterthought - or other elements for that matter - breaking the narrative flow and reminding the viewer that they are, indeed, watching a movie.
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?"
And that's what I'm worried about. When you mash up three franchises with different Rules, you run the risk of undermining the rules that each individual one follows, and you wind up with a clusterfuck, where each individual movie in the three separate franchises becomes ridiculous because one of the other franchise heroes' powers could save the day instantly. The audience asks, "Why doesn't Iron Man just call Thor for help right now?" when Iron Man is in some situation in his own movie that would only be able to create tension when his own movie's Rules were being followed, and so on.
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?"
And that's what I'm worried about. When you mash up three franchises with different Rules, you run the risk of undermining the rules that each individual one follows, and you wind up with a clusterfuck, where each individual movie in the three separate franchises becomes ridiculous because one of the other franchise heroes' powers could save the day instantly. The audience asks, "Why doesn't Iron Man just call Thor for help right now?" when Iron Man is in some situation in his own movie that would only be able to create tension when his own movie's Rules were being followed, and so on.
Personally, some of the changes from comic to movie form (such as with XMen) always appealed to me. It struck me more as an attempt to appeal to the greater audience of mostly adults living in the 2000's than out of any desperate attempt to make them seem more 'real'. A lot of the stuff about the old comics...from their flamboyant costumes to the ridiculous monsters...come across as corny and childish to the average modern adult. Unfortunately I wasn't born into Geekdom until I was a teenager, so I never kept up with comics growing up. To me, the modern 'gritty realistic' approach to comic book heroes is more relate-able as I can easily picture myself as one of the characters or at least as someone in their world, thus granting me a feeling of greater interactivity with the film. Ordinary people becoming extraordinary in an ordinary, but dangerous world. The power to change what we wish we could change every day of our lives.
This is NOT to say that overly fantastic movies which reject reality cannot be done well. I recently saw Speed Racer...and have to admit it was one of the most surprising things I've ever seen. I've never watched the old show. I had no idea what it was about except racing. And going through the first 30 minutes I was convinced I was going to hate it. "This is ridiculous...his name is actually 'Speed Racer'? WTF Is up with all the crazy colors?"
By the end, I realized I had actually enjoyed it a great deal. It was outlandish and TOTALLY unrealistic, but that was something I really enjoyed about it. The art and design was fantastic, the filmography was wacky, the humor was...well, mostly too childish, but occasionally hilarious, and the story, though a bit predictable, had a few little twists and kept me entertained. As I said, I've never seen the old show, so I can't say how faithful to it, but my boyfriend commented on how they pulled so much from it and was pleased. It was pretty obviously made to pander mostly to 12 year old boys, but the insanity of it grew on me.
On the realism side, one of my favorite action movies is Taken. I absolutely love the direct, to-the-point nature of the father and the emotion of it really grabbed me. There was very little about it that struck me as far-fetched and completely unrealistic, and I loved that.
So, coming away from all this, I have to say I'm glad I have such an open mind for what I enjoy in movies...I'm happily entertained all the more.
This is NOT to say that overly fantastic movies which reject reality cannot be done well. I recently saw Speed Racer...and have to admit it was one of the most surprising things I've ever seen. I've never watched the old show. I had no idea what it was about except racing. And going through the first 30 minutes I was convinced I was going to hate it. "This is ridiculous...his name is actually 'Speed Racer'? WTF Is up with all the crazy colors?"
By the end, I realized I had actually enjoyed it a great deal. It was outlandish and TOTALLY unrealistic, but that was something I really enjoyed about it. The art and design was fantastic, the filmography was wacky, the humor was...well, mostly too childish, but occasionally hilarious, and the story, though a bit predictable, had a few little twists and kept me entertained. As I said, I've never seen the old show, so I can't say how faithful to it, but my boyfriend commented on how they pulled so much from it and was pleased. It was pretty obviously made to pander mostly to 12 year old boys, but the insanity of it grew on me.
On the realism side, one of my favorite action movies is Taken. I absolutely love the direct, to-the-point nature of the father and the emotion of it really grabbed me. There was very little about it that struck me as far-fetched and completely unrealistic, and I loved that.
So, coming away from all this, I have to say I'm glad I have such an open mind for what I enjoy in movies...I'm happily entertained all the more.
Kudos, here's hoping you get your wish. It would make for more fantastic movies for all of us. The only argument I can make in realism's favor is that it gave us a cinematic codex that allowed us to become more fully immersed in a movie's universe. But now that those lessons are learned, isn't it time we apply them to fantasy worlds and see how far down the rabbit hole we can take an audience? I think most 'square' movie critics aren't impressed with fantasy films because they only see them as spectacle, and aren't willing to give themselves over to the experience whole-heartedly. Their loss.Movie Bob said:
I think most of us agree with Adam Savage of Mythbusters: "I reject your reality and substitute my own"
That's what most of us want from movies/comics/games/etc. Sure, it's nice to think that spies or such things live in our everyday lives, but honestly, seeing fantastic things from an Iron Man movie for example makes me extremely happy and, most of all, entertained.
Kudos to you Bob, you expressed what many of us (more or less) wanted.
That's what most of us want from movies/comics/games/etc. Sure, it's nice to think that spies or such things live in our everyday lives, but honestly, seeing fantastic things from an Iron Man movie for example makes me extremely happy and, most of all, entertained.
Kudos to you Bob, you expressed what many of us (more or less) wanted.
The comments on that Geek Apocalypse post (to say nothing of the main article) are rather...extreme. I had no idea people out of highschool still used nerd, geek, and dork as insults. Most of us proudly display those labels these days. They seem to be very much against the idea of fun in a movie or any other hobby. Something is very wrong when you can't appreciate a work of entertainment just because its a cartoon or from a comic or has any other relation to geekdom.
'Action films of the past have always had a grounding in reality.'
Either that other reviewer is smoking something i really want to get hold of or my daily life is a lot more dull than I thought. Is this man seriously saying that ACTION films, the realm of Stallone, Kilmer, Scwarzenegger etc, have had a grounding in reality?
Anyway, my stance as a writer is that all fiction is fantasy, and fiction trying to pass itself off as reality is usually more fantastical than anything with monsters and dragons. My sister likes 'reality' fiction, so I asked her what some of the plots were to her books, and if the amount of tragedy which befalls one person in the space of twenty four hours in those books has ever befallen a real person I will eat my left shoe.
Either that other reviewer is smoking something i really want to get hold of or my daily life is a lot more dull than I thought. Is this man seriously saying that ACTION films, the realm of Stallone, Kilmer, Scwarzenegger etc, have had a grounding in reality?
Anyway, my stance as a writer is that all fiction is fantasy, and fiction trying to pass itself off as reality is usually more fantastical than anything with monsters and dragons. My sister likes 'reality' fiction, so I asked her what some of the plots were to her books, and if the amount of tragedy which befalls one person in the space of twenty four hours in those books has ever befallen a real person I will eat my left shoe.
Personally while I can appericate realism, and so I can to absudity, I gag when a film maker goes to far unrealistic actions while anything that shoves realism down our throats every second makes me gag. I will fully accept any kind of magical, mysitcal, or impossible situation if its rules are explained and there are limits. For example, in Harry Potter one can't just point a stick at something and it will turn into a dragon, in the Matrix (the first one at least) one can only bend the Matrix so far, in God of War Kratos has to find a one time use God killing magic which is extremely hard to get to, Bioshock for Adam causing insanity.
Basically, I will accept anything as long as their is a "magic logic" that the author abides to. Why I didn't like the second and third Matrix for their "We can do anything" plot moving characters, or God of War's "he was born with it", and Bioshock 2's "Adam can do whatever the %^&* we want it to".
Basically, I will accept anything as long as their is a "magic logic" that the author abides to. Why I didn't like the second and third Matrix for their "We can do anything" plot moving characters, or God of War's "he was born with it", and Bioshock 2's "Adam can do whatever the %^&* we want it to".
I think realism and fantasy each have their purpose.
RE: Iron Man versus Hulk versus Captain America versus Thor --> That little glowing ring that powers Iron Man and his ilk is technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. That he can exist in the same universe as Norse deities and Super Soldiers is completely consistent, and not nearly as much of a crossover as you imply.
RE: Iron Man versus Hulk versus Captain America versus Thor --> That little glowing ring that powers Iron Man and his ilk is technology sufficiently advanced as to be indistinguishable from magic. That he can exist in the same universe as Norse deities and Super Soldiers is completely consistent, and not nearly as much of a crossover as you imply.
Action movies were realistic?
Has that guy ever saw the Die hard movies? You can't lite jet fuel so easily, you can't keep moving after you have been shot at a hundred times or more... etc.
pratically ever movie that bruce willis, arnold and sylvester stallone has starred in has so gosh darn unrealistic that it's fun. Action movies of the eighties, nineties and even now are all unrealistic.
Has that guy ever saw the Die hard movies? You can't lite jet fuel so easily, you can't keep moving after you have been shot at a hundred times or more... etc.
pratically ever movie that bruce willis, arnold and sylvester stallone has starred in has so gosh darn unrealistic that it's fun. Action movies of the eighties, nineties and even now are all unrealistic.